Court Upholds Constitutionality of Rule 67

In Thiele v City of Phoenix , Division 1 upheld the constitutionality of Rule 67, Ariz.R.Civ.Pro.  The pro per Plaintiff, Mr. Thiele, appealed the dismissal of his complaint for failure to provide a cost bond pursuant to Rule 67.  He claimed the Rule on its face violated Equal Privileges and Immunities clause of the Arizona Constitution.    The Court determined that the Rule did not violate the State’s constitution because the waiver provision of Rule 67(e) provides a constitutionally significant limitation on 67(d).

Under 67(e) even when the defendant in a civil action establishes grounds for  cost bond, the bond requirement is waivable if the Plaintiff proves he cannot afford to pay the security.  Moreover the Rule is not unconstitutional as it does not mandate a bond in every civil case, and only applies upon a showing that a Plaintiff lacks property in the state that can be readily attached to satisfy a judgment for costs.