Thiele v. City of Phoenix, 301 P.3d 206

Thiele challenges Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 67(d) on its facial constitutionality and its application to require security for costs when he lacks Arizona assets.
Rule 67(d) allows a court to order security for costs if the plaintiff does not own property in the state that could satisfy costs.
Rule 67(e) provides a waiver mechanism if the plaintiff proves inability to post security, potentially vacating the order.
City sought $30,000 security for costs without providing an estimated taxable cost of litigation.
Trial court granted security and Thiele was later reduced to $15,000 after an evidentiary hearing, but the record lacked an estimated cost analysis.
The case was dismissed with prejudice for nonpayment, prompting Thiele’s appeal arguing access-to-courts concerns and improper bond sizing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of Rule 67(d) and (e)	Thiele contends Rule 67(d) unconstitutionally restricts access to courts.	City argues Rule 67(d) rationally furthers costs collection.	Facially constitutional; waiver in Rule 67(e) preserves access.
Adequacy of bond amount under Rule 67(d)	Bond amount was not supported by estimated taxable costs.	City contends bond reflects potential costs.	Trial court abused discretion; bond not grounded in estimated costs and remand for proper calculation.
Reasonableness of relying on prior litigation to justify bond	Predecessor actions’ conduct should not determine current costs.	Past dilatory tactics may justify security.	Prior conduct cannot alone justify the current cost bond absent cost estimates.
Effect of § 12-345 on costs	Statutory relief for city reduces potential costs.	Cities still liable for taxable costs.	§ 12-345 does not fully exempt from costs; still considered in bond calculation.

Eastin v. Broomfield, 116 Ariz. 576 (Ariz. Sup. Ct. 1977) (cost bond unconstitutional when it denied access to courts)
New v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 127 Ariz. 68 (Ariz. Sup. Ct. 1980) (bond requirement barred meritorious claims based on financial status)
Tahtinen v. Superior Court, 130 Ariz. 513 (Ariz. Sup. Ct. 1981) (rational-basis review; non-fundamental-right justification allowed)
Browning v. Corbett, 153 Ariz. 74 (Ariz. App. 1986) (waiver via indigence; filing-fee not access-barrier per Rule 67(e))
Simulnet E. Assocs. v. Ramada Hotel Operating Co., 37 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 1994) (federal standard for evaluating security for costs to avoid depriving access to courts)
City of Phoenix v. Kenly, 21 Ariz. App. 394 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974) (statutory relief limits but does not exempt ordinary costs)