Rodrick v. Ellis
1 CA-CV 15-0725
| Ariz. Ct. App. | May 30, 2017Background
- Rodrick and Heisig sued Ellis in 2013 alleging defamation and related torts based on Rodrick’s websites that published criminal records of sex offenders; Ellis counterclaimed (malicious prosecution, abuse of process, defamation, conspiracy).
- Judge Cooper handled pretrial matters, sanctioned Rodrick for discovery and contempt-type conduct, ordered removal of certain website content, and entered substantial judgments after trial remittit adjustments; some pretrial rulings favored Rodrick.
- Case reassigned to Judge Gerlach for trial; Rodrick failed to file a compliant pretrial statement and the court dismissed his claims at trial; jury returned verdicts against Rodrick and final judgments were entered (Rodrick failed to perfect appeals earlier).
- After a media report that Judge Cooper was living with a registered sex offender, Judge Cooper recused; Rodrick and Heisig moved to set aside prior judgments asserting an appearance of judicial impropriety and sought a new trial.
- Judge Gerlach denied the motion to set aside, concluding Rodrick failed to show either (1) an appearance of impropriety that threatened the integrity of the judicial process or (2) actual prejudice from Judge Cooper’s conduct; Rodrick appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court applied the correct legal standards and did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under Rule 60(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a judge’s undisclosed personal relationship with a registered sex offender created an appearance of impropriety requiring vacatur | Rodrick: An objective test suffices — any circumstance that reasonably questions impartiality requires relief; Judge Cooper’s household relationship created such an appearance | Ellis: No evidence Judge Cooper knew relevant facts during pretrial; many pretrial rulings favored Rodrick; no reasonable perception of compromised integrity | Held: No — court correctly applied the objective appearance-of-impropriety test and found no threat to judicial integrity given lack of knowledge or personal involvement |
| Whether actual prejudice was required for relief and whether Rodrick proved it | Rodrick: Relief based on appearance alone; actual prejudice not required | Ellis: New trial unwarranted absent actual prejudice because reversal on mere appearance would undermine finality | Held: Even under appearance test, court properly considered actual prejudice; Rodrick waived challenge by not arguing actual prejudice and failed to show it |
| Whether the trial court applied correct legal standards in denying the Rule 60(c) motion | Rodrick: Court used wrong standard | Ellis: Court used the proper McElhanon/Kay S. framework and analyzed both appearance and prejudice | Held: Court applied correct legal standard de novo and did not err |
| Whether appellate jurisdiction was proper given a nunc pro tunc order entered after the appealed ruling | Rodrick: (implicit) appeal from original order was sufficient | Ellis: August 4 nunc pro tunc order was final and no new notice was filed | Held: Jurisdiction exists — nunc pro tunc amended the earlier order retroactively and original notice sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kay S. v. Mark S., 213 Ariz. 373 (App. 2006) (appearance-of-impropriety objective test for judicial impartiality)
- McElhanon v. Hing, 151 Ariz. 403 (App. 1986) (reversal required when appearance of impropriety threatens judicial integrity or causes actual prejudice)
- In re Estate of Long, 229 Ariz. 458 (App. 2012) (standard of review and when appearance requires reversal)
- Valley Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Meneghin, 130 Ariz. 119 (1981) (nunc pro tunc judgments operate retroactively)
- Albins v. Elovitz, 164 Ariz. 99 (App. 1990) (timely notice of appeal from original judgment suffices after nunc pro tunc amendment)