Bindinglaw

US · rules

D. Ariz. LRCrim 5.2

Transfer of Cases; Filing of Motion to Transfer; Responsive and Reply Memoranda; Assignment

activein force · 2026-09-18 – presentact-effective-date

(a) Transfer of Cases. Whenever two or more cases are pending before

different Judges and any party believes that such cases arise from substantially the same

transaction or event; involve substantially the same parties; or, for any other reason

would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different Judges, any party may

file a motion to transfer the case or cases involved to a single Judge.

(b) Filing of a Motion to Transfer. A motion to transfer must identify all the

cases that are the subject of the motion by case name and case number. The movant must

file the motion in a case in which the movant is a party. If the movant is a party in more

than one of the affected cases, the movant must file the motion in the case with the lowest

case number in which the movant is a party. The Clerk's Office will electronically file the

motion in each of the other affected cases identified in the motion. The motion will be

heard and decided, after consulting with the Judges assigned to the other affected cases,

in the case with the lowest case number.

(c) Responsive and Reply Memoranda. Any party in any case that is the

subject of a motion to transfer may file a responsive memorandum, and the movant may

file a reply memorandum. Any responsive or reply memorandum must identify all the

cases affected by the underlying motion. The filer must file the responsive or reply

memorandum in a case in which the filer is a party. The Clerk's Office will electronically

file the responsive or reply memorandum in each affected case identified in the

memorandum.

(d) Assignment. If a motion to transfer is granted, the following factors may

be considered in determining the Judge to whom the case or cases will be assigned: (1)

whether substantive matters have been considered in a case; (2) which Judge has the most

familiarity with the issues involved in the cases; (3) whether a case is reasonably viewed

as the lead or principal case; or (4) any other factor serving the interest of judicial

economy.

Provenance

Source
www.azd.uscourts.gov
Retrieved
2026-09-18
Edition
fed-district-2026-09-18
Content hash
cac5312fb6220407993f3062c905c16d090ea0ad8019baabaa06825f6572575b
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.