Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3007 (2026)

Motion to compel or stay arbitration

✓ current as of May 2026

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. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 19× “But the legislature has made it clear that § 12-3007 cannot be waived. A.R.S. § 12-3004(C) (“A party to an agreement to arbitrate or to an arbitration proceeding may not waive, or the parties may not vary the effect of, the requirements of .”

Andrich v. Thrasher (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 14× “See A.R.S. § 12-3007(A); see also A.R.S. § 12-3006(B) (noting the court’s role in “decid[ing] whether an agreement to arbitrate exists” or whether the 8 ANDRICH v.”

Rli Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Constr. & Dev., Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 10× “¶12 In evaluating a motion under § 12-3007, a superior court is confined to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate exists.”

Silman v. Swift Transp. Inc. (D. Ariz. 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. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 12-3007(B) (emphasis added); see also, Gray, 256 Ariz.”

Castle Rock v. Perry (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 4× “After filing a reply in support of the motion to dismiss, Contractor moved the superior court to stay the case until it ruled on the motion to dismiss, citing A.R.S. § 12-3007 and noting that the motion to dismiss was “in effect a motion to compel arbitration.”

Dms Companies v. Hernandez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “”) section 12-3007(A) and stay all of the proceedings.”

Turley v. Beus (Ariz. Ct. App. 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 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Wildflower cross-moved to stay the superior court proceedings and compel arbitration under A.R.S. § 12-3007, arguing Caliente’s claims were subject to the contract’s arbitration clause.”

Meyers Law PLLC v. Arik (D. Ariz. 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 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). “See A.R.S. § 12-3007(A); see also A.R.S. § 12-3006(B) (noting the court’s role in “decid[ing] whether an agreement to arbitrate exists” or whether the 8 ANDRICH v.”

Dms Companies v. Hernandez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “”) section 12-3007(A) and stay all of the proceedings.”

Rli Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Constr. & Dev., Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “¶12 In evaluating a motion under § 12-3007, a superior court is confined to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate exists.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3007(A)(2) — 5 cases

Gray v. Gc Servs. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “But the legislature has made it clear that § 12-3007 cannot be waived. A.R.S. § 12-3004(C) (“A party to an agreement to arbitrate or to an arbitration proceeding may not waive, or the parties may not vary the effect of, the requirements of .”

Turley v. Beus (Ariz. Ct. App. 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. (D. Ariz. 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 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3007(B) — 2 cases

Marketech v. Process Serv. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “” A.R.S. § 12-3007(B) (emphasis added); see also, Gray, 256 Ariz.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3007(C) — 3 cases

Dms Companies v. Hernandez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “”) section 12-3007(A) and stay all of the proceedings.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3007(D) — 3 cases

— 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.”

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.