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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-406 (2026)

Change of venue for cause; grounds; bond; appeal

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. If either party to a civil action pending in the superior court, after answer has been filed, files an affidavit in the action alleging any of the grounds specified in subsection B and gives five days notice to the opposite party, the venue may be changed as provided in section 12-407.

B. Grounds which may be alleged as provided in subsection A for change of venue are:

1. That there exists in the county where the action is pending so great a prejudice against the party requesting a change of venue that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial.

2. That the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.

3. That there is other good and sufficient cause, to be determined by the court.

C. The party applying for the change of venue shall at the time of application file a bond to be approved by the judge of the court conditioned that he will pay all costs that may be adjudged against him in the action if the application is granted. The truth and sufficiency of the grounds shall be determined by the court, but a decision thereon refusing the change may be assigned as error on appeal.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1957–2021 · leading case: Dunn v. Carruth, 784 P.2d 684 (Ariz. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dunn v. Carruth, 784 P.2d 684 (Ariz. 1989). · cites it 42× “We hold that a motion under A.R.S. § 12-406 is not precluded in cases removed to Maricopa County pursuant to A.”
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez, 147 P.3d 755 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 15× “Therefore, unlike changes of venue pursuant to § 12-406 for which a moving party must show cause and on which the trial court has discretion, changes of venue under § 12-408 “require[] no showing other than that a county is an opposing party, [and] there is no discretion vested…”
Curtis v. Richardson, 131 P.3d 480 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “Curtis then moved pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-406 (2003) to change venue to Yuma County, and the court denied the motion to change venue as moot.”
Cooke v. Berlin, 735 P.2d 830 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 8× “The provision is mandatory. Additionally, *227 when a change of venue has been made pursuant to A.”
Sierra Tucson, Inc. v. Bergin Ex Rel. Cnty. of Pima, 372 P.3d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “¶ 6 Whether venue should be changed pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-406, however, is left to a trial court’s discretion.”
Rutledge v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 711 P.2d 1207 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 12-406 provides in pertinent part: A.”
Behrens v. O'Melia, 78 P.3d 278 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 11× “” See A.R.S. § 12-406(B)(2); Dunn v. Carruth, 162 Ariz.”
Johnson v. Univ. Hosp., 712 P.2d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 9× “Plaintiff moved for a change of venue in Maricopa County Superior Court pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-406 and -407, claiming forum non conveniens.”
Reilly v. Super. Ct. in & for Maricopa Cty., 687 P.2d 1295 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 10× “Levy also notes that A.R.S. § 12-406 provides for a change of venue on the ground “that the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.”
S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Lueck, 535 P.2d 599 (Ariz. 1975). · cites it 3× “Section (B) of § 12-406 provides as one of the grounds: “That the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.”
Nielson v. Hicks, 240 P.3d 276 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “The Nielsons also raise several other arguments relating to venue under A.R.S. § 12-406 (2010). Section 12-406 allows parties to change venue based on “prejudice" that would prevent "a fair and impartial trial” or for other “good and sufficient cause.”
Marks v. LaBerge, 703 P.2d 559 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-406; Sulger v. Superior Court, 85 Ariz.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-406(A) — 2 cases
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez, 147 P.3d 755 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “Therefore, unlike changes of venue pursuant to § 12-406 for which a moving party must show cause and on which the trial court has discretion, changes of venue under § 12-408 “require[] no showing other than that a county is an opposing party, [and] there is no discretion vested…”
S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Lueck, 535 P.2d 599 (Ariz. 1975). “Section (B) of § 12-406 provides as one of the grounds: “That the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-406(B) — 2 cases
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez, 147 P.3d 755 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “Therefore, unlike changes of venue pursuant to § 12-406 for which a moving party must show cause and on which the trial court has discretion, changes of venue under § 12-408 “require[] no showing other than that a county is an opposing party, [and] there is no discretion vested…”
Yarbrough v. Roberts Enter., Dewitt, Avator Holdings (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-406(B)(1) — 5 cases
Rutledge v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 711 P.2d 1207 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “A.R.S. § 12-406 provides in pertinent part: A.”
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez, 147 P.3d 755 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “Therefore, unlike changes of venue pursuant to § 12-406 for which a moving party must show cause and on which the trial court has discretion, changes of venue under § 12-408 “require[] no showing other than that a county is an opposing party, [and] there is no discretion vested…”
Rohan Mgmt., Inc. v. Jantzen, 436 P.3d 491 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
Sierra Tucson, Inc. v. Bergin Ex Rel. Cnty. of Pima, 372 P.3d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “¶ 6 Whether venue should be changed pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-406, however, is left to a trial court’s discretion.”
Yarbrough v. Roberts Enter., Dewitt, Avator Holdings (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-406(B)(2) — 11 cases
Dunn v. Carruth, 784 P.2d 684 (Ariz. 1989). “We hold that a motion under A.R.S. § 12-406 is not precluded in cases removed to Maricopa County pursuant to A.”
Cooke v. Berlin, 735 P.2d 830 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “The provision is mandatory. Additionally, *227 when a change of venue has been made pursuant to A.”
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez, 147 P.3d 755 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “Therefore, unlike changes of venue pursuant to § 12-406 for which a moving party must show cause and on which the trial court has discretion, changes of venue under § 12-408 “require[] no showing other than that a county is an opposing party, [and] there is no discretion vested…”
Curtis v. Richardson, 131 P.3d 480 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “Curtis then moved pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-406 (2003) to change venue to Yuma County, and the court denied the motion to change venue as moot.”
Sierra Tucson, Inc. v. Bergin Ex Rel. Cnty. of Pima, 372 P.3d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “¶ 6 Whether venue should be changed pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-406, however, is left to a trial court’s discretion.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-406(B)(3) — 4 cases
Behrens v. O'Melia, 78 P.3d 278 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “” See A.R.S. § 12-406(B)(2); Dunn v. Carruth, 162 Ariz.”
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez, 147 P.3d 755 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “Therefore, unlike changes of venue pursuant to § 12-406 for which a moving party must show cause and on which the trial court has discretion, changes of venue under § 12-408 “require[] no showing other than that a county is an opposing party, [and] there is no discretion vested…”
Sierra Tucson, Inc. v. Bergin Ex Rel. Cnty. of Pima, 372 P.3d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “¶ 6 Whether venue should be changed pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-406, however, is left to a trial court’s discretion.”
Yarbrough v. Roberts Enter., Dewitt, Avator Holdings (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
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.