KRONCKE v. HON NELSON/PHOENIX et al

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 DIVISION ONE FILED: 3/19/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) THE HONORABLE JOHN N. NELSON, Judge of ) ) the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ) ARIZONA, in and for the County of ) YUMA, ) ) Respondent Judge, ) ) CITY OF PHOENIX, CITY OF MESA, COY ) HUGHES JOHNSTON, JUDIT A. TOWNSEND, ) MARVIN A. SONDAG, RAYMOND VACA, JR., ) Real Parties in Interest. ) ) ) ROBERT EARL KRONCKE, Court of Appeals Division One No. 1 CA-SA 12-0223 Yuma County Superior Court No. S1400CV201200871 DEPARTMENT C DECISION ORDER This special action came on regularly for conference on October 30, 2012, before Presiding Judge Philip Hall, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge Samuel A. Thumma. On August 23, 2012, the Honorable John N. Nelson entered an order dismissing Robert Earl Kroncke s complaint in Yuma County Superior Court case number S1400CV201200871 because the events alleged by [Kroncke] all occurred in Maricopa County and all defendants are residents of Maricopa County. By Administrative Order 2012-22 filed August 24, 2012, Judge Nelson also found Kroncke to be a vexatious litigant and forbade him from filing any new causes of action without leave of the presiding judge. In making this determination, Judge Nelson relied on Maricopa County Superior Court Administrative Order No. 2008-134, dated April 6, 2009. Kroncke filed a petition seeking special-action relief from Administrative Order 2012-22, arguing that he was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard in advance of Judge Nelson entering the order finding him a vexatious litigant. Because Kroncke has no equally plain, speedy, [or] adequate remedy by appeal, we accept jurisdiction. Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a); Madison v. Groseth, 230 Ariz. 8, 13-14 n.8, ¶ 16, 279 P.3d 633, 638-39 n.8 (App. 2012).1 Arizona courts possess inherent authority to curtail a vexatious litigant s ability to initiate additional lawsuits. Madison, 230 Ariz. at 14, ¶ 17, 279 P.3d at 639. When entering such an order, the court must: (1) afford the litigant notice and an opportunity to oppose the order, (2) create an adequate record for appellate review that includes a listing of all cases 1 Although Kroncke used the caption for case no. S1400CV201200871 to formulate the caption in his special-action petition, he does not seek any relief from Judge Nelson s dismissal order. In any event, Kroncke had the right to appeal from the dismissal, which constituted the final judgment in that matter. See A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1) (Supp. 2012). 2 and motions leading the court to enter the order, (3) make substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant s actions, and (4) narrowly tailor the order to closely fit the specific vice encountered. Id. at 14, ¶ 18, 279 P.3d at 639. Administrative Order No. 2008-134 complies with the Madison requirements, including notice and an opportunity for Kroncke to be heard. Because the superior courts of Arizona constitute a single court of general jurisdiction, see Ariz. Const. art. 6, §§ 13, 14(1); see also Marvin Johnson, P.C. v. Myers, 184 Ariz. 98, 102, 907 P.2d 67, 71 (1995) (recognizing the constitutional grant of jurisdiction to the Superior Court of Arizona as a single unified trial court of general jurisdiction ), Kroncke was not entitled to additional due-process protections before Judge Nelson, in reliance on the Maricopa County Administrative Order, entered Administrative Order No. 2012-22. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED accepting jurisdiction of Kroncke s specialaction petition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Kroncke s request for relief. /s/ PHILIP HALL, Presiding Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.