Blog

Public Warning – Judge Julie A. Mata

Judge Mata

Do you have a family law case in Maricopa County Superior Court? Is your case currently assigned to Judge Julie Ann Mata?

If so, please read this EXTREMELY important message.

If your family law case is currently assigned to Judge Mata, you should immediately ask for your case to be reassigned to a new judge. With only limited restrictions, the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure allow you to have a new judge assigned with virtually no questions asked. But you can lose this valuable right if you wait too long….so PLEASE, do yourself a favor — if your case is assigned to Judge Mata, you should consider immediately asking for a new judge.

Here’s why — Judge Julie Mata has recently been accused of using Internet research to decide cases assigned to her. This is absolutely illegal and unethical, and it can lead to heartbreaking results for your family and loved ones.

In fact, in one recent complaint posted on TheRobingRoom.com, the author claims Judge Mata took his children away based on bogus information the judge found in a Google search. This is absolutely heartbreaking. And it’s illegal.

Folks — it is BLATANTLY unlawful for a judge to decide your case based on something they found in an Internet search. This is a clear violation of both the United States Constitution and Rule 2.9 of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct. The law only permits a judge to decide your case based on admissible facts and evidence submitted in court.

Google is not a valid legal source of evidence….unless your case is assigned to Judge Mata.

In fact, the Arizona Judicial Conduct Commission is currently investigating a complaint which accuses Judge Mata of making factual findings in a high profile case based solely on social media posts made after a hearing. You can read more about these serious allegations of misconduct against Judge Mata here and here. When the complaint against Judge Mata is resolved, we will report the outcome here.

So what can you do to protect your family and your rights? Simple — all you need to do is file a short document with the court to ask for a new judge. You DO NOT need to give any reasons or offer any proof to support your request. As long as you submit this form in a timely manner, you have the absolute right to one change of judge automatically.

Here is a sample form you can use: Notice of Change of Judge.

NOTE: You MUST file this form no less than 60 days before a scheduled trial or contested hearing. This means if the judge has already held a trial or a contested hearing in your case, it may be too late to use this option.

If you have any questions, you can get a FREE CONSULTATION with attorney David Gingras. Just send an email with your name, case #, and contact information to: David@GingrasLaw.com. Mr. Gingras will gladly help determine if you are eligible to request a change of judge at NO cost.

Disclaimer: this page is NOT a legal advertisement. This page is solely offered as a public service announcement to help educate anyone with a family law case pending in Maricopa County.

UPDATE: 12/19/2024 – After viewing this page, some angry supporters of Judge Mata have complained the page is somehow “misleading” because it does not include additional information about the reason for the concerns expressed above which they felt should be included. That is not how the First Amendment works, but for purposes of added clarity and transparency, this update is being offered anyway.

This should be obvious to anyone reading the page, but the author of this page (attorney David Gingras) recently handled a high-profile case in front of Judge Mata called Owens v. Echard, FC2023-052114. In that case, Judge Mata engaged in conduct that is alleged to have been unlawful and unethical, as outlined in the affidavit filed by Mr. Gingras which is linked in the original post above. For ease of reference, another copy of the pleadings containing the allegations against Judge Mata are available here and here.

In short, Mr. Gingras has accused Judge Mata of making an important finding based on anonymous social media posts published after a trial, rather basing the finding on evidence admitted at trial. Judge Mata is also accused of sharing information about the case with her father, including printing out case documents for him, and discussing those documents with him. If true, that conduct would appear to violate the Code of Judicial Conduct and the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of due process.

Some of the details of Judge Mata’s conduct were reported on social media by third parties as shown here:

To date, Judge Mata has NOT denied, explained, or otherwise responded to any of these allegations in any public filing.

In addition, after Mr. Gingras reported Judge Mata’s apparent misconduct to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Misconduct, the judge appeared to engage in one or more acts of retaliation against Mr. Gingras by, among other things, filing a frivolous bar complaint against him. Those separate retaliatory acts by Judge Mata have also been reported to the Commission on Judicial Conduct as an apparent violation of the Commission’s rules which expressly forbid any acts of retaliation by a judge in response to a complaint.

To date, the complaint against Judge Mata remains unresolved. The Commission on Judicial Conduct does not release any information regarding the status of ongoing investigations until the case is resolved. As of mid-December 2024, the Commission has acknowledged receipt of the original complaint as well as the supplemental complaints of retaliation, but the Commission has not indicated that its investigation is complete. Once the Commission reports that the complaint has been resolved, the outcome will be explained here.

Here is the full text of Arizona Family Law Rule 6:

Rule 6 – Change of Judge as a Matter of Right
(a) Definitions.

(1) Judge. The term “judge” as used in this rule and Rule 6.1 refers to any judge, judge pro tem, or court commissioner.
(2) Presiding judge. The term “presiding judge” as used in this rule refers to the presiding superior court judge in the county where the action is pending, or that judge’s designee.
(b) Generally. In each action, whether single or consolidated, each party is entitled as a matter of right to a change of judge.
(c) Notice Requirements. A party seeking a change of judge as a matter of right must either file a written notice, or make an oral request on the record, in the manner provided below:

(1) Written Notice. A written notice of change of judge must be served on all other parties, the presiding judge, the noticed judge, and the court administrator, if any, by any method provided in Rule 43(b). The notice must contain:

(A) the name of the judge to be changed;
(B) a statement that:

(i) the notice is timely under Rule 6(d);
(ii) no waiver has occurred under Rule 6(e); and
(iii) the party has not been granted a change of a judge as a matter of right previously in the action. The notice cannot specify grounds for the change of judge.
(2) Oral Notice. An oral request for change of judge must include the information required by Rule 6(c)(1)(A) and (B). When made, it is deemed to be an “oral notice of change of judge” for purposes of this rule. The judge must enter on the record the date of the oral notice, the requesting party’s name, and the judge’s disposition of the request. A party obtaining a change of judge based on an oral notice is deemed to have exercised its right to a change of judge under Rule 6(b). For purposes of this rule, an oral notice is deemed “filed” on the date that it is made on the record.
(d) Time Limits. A party is precluded from obtaining a change of judge as a matter of right unless the party files a timely notice.

(1) The notice must be filed 60 or more days before a scheduled contested hearing or trial.
(2) If a new judge is assigned within 60 days of a scheduled contested hearing or trial, a notice is timely filed as to the newly assigned judge if filed within 10 days after the party receives notice of the new assignment, or within 10 days after the new judge is assigned, whichever is later.
(3) If a party has received less than 10 days’ notice of a proceeding or the assignment of the judge, the party must file a notice at least 3 days before the proceeding.
(4) If a party has received less than 5 days’ notice of a proceeding or a judge assignment, the party may file a notice of change of judge at any time before the proceeding begins.
(5) If the right to a change of judge is renewed under Rule 6(f), a notice is timely if filed within 15 days after issuance of the appellate court’s mandate under ARCAP 24.
(e) Waiver. A party waives the right to change a judge assigned to preside over any proceeding in the action, if:

(1) the party agrees to the assignment;
(2) the judge rules on any contested issue, or grants or denies a motion to dispose of any claim or defense, if the party had an opportunity to file a notice of change of judge before the ruling is made;
(3) a resolution management, scheduling, pretrial, or similar conference begins; or
(4) a scheduled contested hearing or trial begins.
(f) Actions Remanded from an Appellate Court. In actions remanded from an appellate court, the right to a change of judge is renewed and no event connected with the first trial constitutes a waiver:

(1) if the appellate decision requires a new trial or contested hearing; and
(2) the party seeking a change of judge has not previously exercised the party’s right to a change of judge in the action.
(g) Procedures on Notice.

(1) On Proper Notice. If a notice is timely filed and no waiver has occurred, the judge named in the notice should proceed no further in the action except to make such temporary orders as are necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage from occurring before the action can be transferred to another judge. If the named judge is the only judge in the county, that judge may also reassign the case.
(2) On Improper Notice. If the court determines that the party who filed the notice is not entitled to a change of judge, the named judge may proceed with the action.
(3) Reassignment.

(A) On Stipulation. If a notice of change of judge is filed, the parties should inform the court in writing whether they have agreed on an available judge who is willing to hear the action. An agreement of all parties may be honored and, if so, bars further changes of judge as a matter of right unless the agreed-on judge becomes unavailable. If a judge to whom an action is assigned by agreement later becomes unavailable because of a change of calendar assignment, death, illness, or other incapacity, the parties may assert any rights under this rule that existed immediately before the assignment to that judge.
(B) Absent Stipulation. If no judge is agreed on, the presiding judge must promptly reassign the action.

Ariz. R. Fam. Law. proc. 6

Added Oct. 19, 2005, effective 1/1/2006. Amended Sept. 16, 2008, effective ; amended effective1/1/2019.