Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Civil Procedure
Summary
HJR021 is a joint resolution that amends the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure to address how cases are managed when a three-judge district court panel is convened. It adds a definition of “district court panel” to Rule 1 and revises Rule 42 to specify how actions may be transferred to a district court panel, including a 45-day window for the Attorney General, Governor, or Legislature to file a notice to convene such a panel in qualifying cases. The resolution also limits further district court action once a panel notice is filed and clarifies that the district court may not sever matters after that notice.
The resolution further updates Rule 63 and Rule 63A to create procedures for disqualifying a judge on a district court panel and for exercising a peremptory change of judge when a panel is involved. It provides that a party may seek disqualification of an individual judge on the panel, but not the panel as a whole, and that if disqualification is granted, a replacement judge is assigned through the random selection process rather than reconstituting the entire panel. It also extends the existing right to one change of judge as a matter of right to cases before a district court panel, with special timing and reassignment rules tailored to panel proceedings.
Impact
If adopted, the resolution would amend the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure rather than the Utah Code, changing court procedure for civil cases involving district court panels. It would affect litigants, judges, the Attorney General, the Governor, and the Legislature in cases where a panel is convened, and it would alter how venue transfers, judge disqualification, and peremptory judge changes operate in those cases. The resolution has no appropriation and takes effect only upon receiving the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in each house, with revisor instructions to insert the actual effective date into the rule text.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears procedural and technical rather than ideological. The measure is framed as a court-administration update intended to clarify how three-judge panels are handled, suggesting a generally practical purpose. No opposition, amendments, or recorded controversy are shown in the supplied context.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the new procedures governing district court panels, especially the ability of the Attorney General, Governor, or Legislature to trigger panel review within a short filing window and the limits placed on district court action after such a notice is filed. Another possible issue is the change to judge-disqualification and change-of-judge rules, including the requirement that a panel not be entirely replaced if one judge is disqualified and the use of random selection for a replacement judge. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, no specific person or group is identified as opposing these provisions, but the affected stakeholders would likely include litigants, trial judges, and state officials involved in panel litigation.