This is a special action decision that is most interesting for the dispute between the judges on the panel. The court of appeals held that a trial court should not impose a “good cause” requirement on withdrawing admissions under Rule 36. Rule 36(b) states that a court may permit withdrawal if it would promote presentation of the merits and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits. Easy enough, but the trial court here required a separate showing of good cause. The defendant was three days late in responding to requests for admission; the requests went to the heart of the dispute, and the requesting party suffered no prejudice.

So, why the squabble? The squabble is over whether the panel should have accepted special action jurisdiction. Judge Jacobs wrote for the majority, and Judge Catlett wrote a lengthy dissent tracing the history of special actions, common-law writs, and the separation of powers. While the judges address each other using language “with respect” and “with great respect,” the tone is more personal, like fisticuffs. For example, Judge Jacobs corrected Judge Catlett on several points of law and pointed out other cases in which Judge Catlett wrote for a panel and took the opposite position. So Judge Catlett, in his dissent, distinguished his own prior opinions while invoking the rule of law. We are left with an unpleasant feeling that these two judges don’t like each other, the same feeling we had twenty years ago when Justice Feldman and Justice Martone used opinions as battlefields. But, in fairness, we are seeing uglier disputes within other courts. E.g., Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, 169 F.4th 817 (9th Cir. 2025). In Olympus Spa, the Ninth Circuit majority admonished Judge VanDyke’s dissent as “vulgar barroom talk.” Judge Vandyke’s dissent begins: “This is a case about swinging dicks.” The dissent goes downhill from there.

link to opinion