Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3007 (2026)

Motion to compel or stay arbitration

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12-3007. Motion to compel or stay arbitration

A. On motion of a person showing an agreement to arbitrate and alleging another person's refusal to arbitrate pursuant to the agreement:

1. If the refusing party does not appear or does not oppose the motion, the court shall order the parties to arbitrate.

2. If the refusing party opposes the motion, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue and order the parties to arbitrate unless it finds that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate.

B. On motion of a person alleging that an arbitration proceeding has been initiated or threatened but that there is no agreement to arbitrate, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue. If the court finds that there is an enforceable agreement to arbitrate, it shall order the parties to arbitrate.

C. If the court finds that there is no enforceable agreement, it may not order the parties to arbitrate pursuant to subsection A or B of this section.

D. The court may not refuse to order arbitration because the claim subject to arbitration lacks merit or grounds for the claim have not been established.

E. If a proceeding involving a claim referable to arbitration under an alleged agreement to arbitrate is pending in court, a motion under this section must be made in that court.  Otherwise, a motion under this section may be made in any court as provided in section 12-3027.

F. If a party makes a motion to the court to order arbitration, the court on just terms shall stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim alleged to be subject to the arbitration until the court renders a final decision under this section.

G. If the court orders arbitration, the court on just terms shall stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim subject to the arbitration. If a claim subject to the arbitration is severable, the court may limit the stay to that claim. 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., 338 P.3d 328 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., 338 P.3d 328 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Therefore, the Rule 54(e) language in the judgment stating that there are “no further matters pending” is not accurate.”
Sec. Alarm Fin. Enter., L.P. v. Fuller, 398 P.3d 578 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Indeed, Arizona’s versions of the Uniform Arbitration Act and the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act expressly do not apply to arbitration agreements, such as the one at issue here, between an employer and its employee.”
Gray v. Gc Servs., 516 P.3d 897 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 19× “. . § 12-3007 . . . .”). Moreover, applying waiver under these facts would directly conflict with § 12-3007(A)(2) and run contrary to public policy.”
Andrich v. Thrasher, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0112 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2026). · cites it 14× “§ 12- 3006(A), the superior court on remand is tasked with determining whether the engagement agreement’s arbitration clause is an “enforceable” agreement to arbitrate, see A.”
Rli Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Constr. & Dev., Inc., 560 P.3d 330 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 10× “, 234 Ariz. 18, ¶ 8 (App. 2014). It is undisputed that RLI was not a signatory to the agreement between NCD and Pulver containing the arbitration clause.”
Silman v. Swift Transp. Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02624 (D. Ariz. Oct. 9, 2024). · cites it 6× “” A.R.S. § 12-3007(A)(2). “To proceed ‘summarily,’ the trial court must first determine whether material issues of fact are disputed and, if so, conduct an expedited 23 evidentiary hearing to resolve those disputes.”
Marketech v. Process Serv., 581 P.3d 725 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “”); Escareno v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. W., L.L.C., 239 Ariz.”
Castle Rock v. Perry, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0678 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2026). · cites it 4× “§ 12-3007 and noting that the motion to dismiss was “in effect a motion to compel arbitration.” ¶7 The superior court denied both motions, ruling that Contractor had waived any right to arbitration.”
DMS Companies v. Hernandez, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0028 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2023). · cites it 3× “DISCUSSION ¶10 It is undisputed that the APA did not contain a general provision to arbitrate.”
Turley v. Beus, No. 1 CA-CV 15-0107, 2017 WL 410976 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017). · cites it 2× “¶37 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-3007(A)(2): 10 The Appellants argue the Siblings’ claims are derivative of the Companies’ because Wil, as the manager of the Companies, consented to the Board’s arbitration authority under the Management Agreement.”
Caliente v. Wildflower, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0824 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 12-3007, arguing Caliente’s claims were subject to the contract’s arbitration clause.”
Meyers Law PLLC v. Arik, No. 2:19-cv-05241 (D. Ariz. Sept. 9, 2020). · cites it 2× “) The Amended Complaint 23 dropped the claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment and contains a single cause 24 of action under the ARUAA pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-3007. (Id. at 1.) Thereafter, on 25 November 20, 2019, Dr.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3007(A): 3 cases
Andrich v. Thrasher, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0112 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2026). “§ 12- 3006(A), the superior court on remand is tasked with determining whether the engagement agreement’s arbitration clause is an “enforceable” agreement to arbitrate, see A.”
DMS Companies v. Hernandez, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0028 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2023). “DISCUSSION ¶10 It is undisputed that the APA did not contain a general provision to arbitrate.”
Rli Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Constr. & Dev., Inc., 560 P.3d 330 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “, 234 Ariz. 18, ¶ 8 (App. 2014). It is undisputed that RLI was not a signatory to the agreement between NCD and Pulver containing the arbitration clause.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3007(A)(2): 5 cases
Gray v. Gc Servs., 516 P.3d 897 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “. . § 12-3007 . . . .”). Moreover, applying waiver under these facts would directly conflict with § 12-3007(A)(2) and run contrary to public policy.”
Andrich v. Thrasher, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0112 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2026). “§ 12- 3006(A), the superior court on remand is tasked with determining whether the engagement agreement’s arbitration clause is an “enforceable” agreement to arbitrate, see A.”
Turley v. Beus, No. 1 CA-CV 15-0107, 2017 WL 410976 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017). “¶37 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-3007(A)(2): 10 The Appellants argue the Siblings’ claims are derivative of the Companies’ because Wil, as the manager of the Companies, consented to the Board’s arbitration authority under the Management Agreement.”
Silman v. Swift Transp. Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02624 (D. Ariz. Oct. 9, 2024). “” A.R.S. § 12-3007(A)(2). “To proceed ‘summarily,’ the trial court must first determine whether material issues of fact are disputed and, if so, conduct an expedited 23 evidentiary hearing to resolve those disputes.”
Beus Gilbert v. Williams, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0650 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2022).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3007(B): 2 cases
Rli Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Constr. & Dev., Inc., 560 P.3d 330 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “, 234 Ariz. 18, ¶ 8 (App. 2014). It is undisputed that RLI was not a signatory to the agreement between NCD and Pulver containing the arbitration clause.”
Marketech v. Process Serv., 581 P.3d 725 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “”); Escareno v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. W., L.L.C., 239 Ariz.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3007(C): 3 cases
Gray v. Gc Servs., 516 P.3d 897 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “. . § 12-3007 . . . .”). Moreover, applying waiver under these facts would directly conflict with § 12-3007(A)(2) and run contrary to public policy.”
Andrich v. Thrasher, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0112 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2026). “§ 12- 3006(A), the superior court on remand is tasked with determining whether the engagement agreement’s arbitration clause is an “enforceable” agreement to arbitrate, see A.”
DMS Companies v. Hernandez, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0028 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2023). “DISCUSSION ¶10 It is undisputed that the APA did not contain a general provision to arbitrate.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3007(D): 3 cases
Gray v. Gc Servs., 516 P.3d 897 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “. . § 12-3007 . . . .”). Moreover, applying waiver under these facts would directly conflict with § 12-3007(A)(2) and run contrary to public policy.”
Andrich v. Thrasher, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0112 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2026). “§ 12- 3006(A), the superior court on remand is tasked with determining whether the engagement agreement’s arbitration clause is an “enforceable” agreement to arbitrate, see A.”
Silman v. Swift Transp. Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02624 (D. Ariz. Oct. 9, 2024). “” A.R.S. § 12-3007(A)(2). “To proceed ‘summarily,’ the trial court must first determine whether material issues of fact are disputed and, if so, conduct an expedited 23 evidentiary hearing to resolve those disputes.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3007(G): 3 cases
Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., 338 P.3d 328 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “Therefore, the Rule 54(e) language in the judgment stating that there are “no further matters pending” is not accurate.”
Gray v. Gc Servs., 516 P.3d 897 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “. . § 12-3007 . . . .”). Moreover, applying waiver under these facts would directly conflict with § 12-3007(A)(2) and run contrary to public policy.”
Silman v. Swift Transp. Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02624 (D. Ariz. Oct. 9, 2024). “” A.R.S. § 12-3007(A)(2). “To proceed ‘summarily,’ the trial court must first determine whether material issues of fact are disputed and, if so, conduct an expedited 23 evidentiary hearing to resolve those disputes.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.