Zhu v. honeywell/honeywell

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

GRACE ZHU, Petitioner Employee,

v.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

HONEYWELL INTL, Respondent Employer,

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 25-0028
FILED 09-25-2026

Special Action - Industrial Commission
ICA Claim No. 20232140132
Carrier Claim No. 231106682
The Honorable C. Andrew Campbell, Administrative Law Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Grace Zhu, Irvine, CA
Petitioner Employee
Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ
By Afshan Peimani
Counsel for Respondent
Ritsema Law, Phoenix, AZ
By Jennifer A. Gulbin
Counsel for Respondent Employer and Respondent Carrier

ZHU v. HONEYWELL/HONEYWELL
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined.

F A B I A N, Judge:

¶1 The Industrial Commission of Arizona (“ICA”) designated
Grace Zhu a vexatious litigant and restricted her filings. She challenges that
order. Finding ample evidence in the record to support the order, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Zhu filed an injury report with the ICA in August 2023,
claiming she contracted “long Covid 19” and other “work related injuries”
in December 2022, January 2023, and February 2023 while working for
Honeywell Intl. Honeywell, a self-insured employer, denied the claim in
September 2023 and Zhu requested a hearing several days later. In the
following months, Zhu reported other work injuries that happened in the
same period, Honeywell denied those claims, and eventually all her claims
were consolidated for a compensability hearing. The ICA set the initial
hearing date for December 2023.

¶3 Zhu represented herself throughout the process. The record
reflects that English is her second language. She was informed about the
rules that apply to hearings and given general information about the
discovery process. Shortly before the December hearing date, Zhu
requested that the hearing be postponed because she was not prepared and
wanted to find an attorney. She also requested a change of judge, but her
reasons for doing so were not clear. The presiding administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) postponed the hearing to March 2024 and gave Zhu more general
information about the hearing process but did not address the change of
judge request.

¶4 The ALJ granted repeated requests by both parties to
postpone the hearing. After discovery issues emerged in February 2025, the
ALJ held a conference in March 2025 to discuss those issues. No transcript
of that proceeding has been provided. The ALJ issued an order later that
day addressing various procedural issues and discovery deadlines, and
denying Zhu’s “request for a change of judge.” In addition, the ALJ ordered
Zhu to cooperate with Respondents for scheduling and attending

2

ZHU v. HONEYWELL/HONEYWELL
Decision of the Court

independent medical examinations (“IME”). The compensability hearing
was set for July 2025.

¶5 Within two weeks of the change-of-judge denial, Zhu filed a
three-page “Motion for Change of Judge,” claiming grounds of bias and
prejudice. She contended that the ALJ “always/mainly follow[s] the
defendant’s statements” and had “preconceived notions or prejudices.” She
also complained about the several hearing postponements. Much of her
motion was comprised of arguments about the substance of her claim.

¶6 On April 11, 2025, the ALJ denied her motion for change of
judge because it was “without merit.” Just three days later, Zhu filed an
“Appeal/Motion to change the Judge” but provided no basis for the
motion. The ALJ issued an order stating Zhu’s “continued requests to
change the ALJ will continue to be denied, as [Zhu] has not articulated any
reasonable basis for that.”

¶7 On April 27, 2025, Zhu filed another motion for change of
judge, this time adding a citation to the ICA statute that authorizes changes
of ALJ, A.R.S. § 23-941, but adding no factual justification. On May 1, 2025,
Honeywell’s counsel moved to declare Zhu a vexatious litigant, citing,
among other things, her repeated filing of motions that had already been
decided. On May 2, 2025, the ALJ denied Zhu’s motion for change of judge
and referred Honeywell’s motion to the ICA Chief ALJ for disposition.

¶8 Throughout April and May 2025, Zhu filed numerous
motions, multiple times, raising discovery issues. For example, Zhu filed a
motion objecting to an upcoming IME. Before a ruling was issued, she filed
the motion or a modified version of it more than five times. The ALJ denied
her motion. On the day it was denied, Zhu refiled, four times, different
versions of her motion or notices that she had filed it. The same day, the
ALJ issued another ruling denying the motions filed that day. This did not
deter Zhu from filing another version of the same motion two days later.
When the ALJ did not issue an order denying her motion a third time, and
after almost a week had passed, Zhu filed yet another version of the same
motion. The day after that, Zhu filed a declaration stating that since the ALJ
had not issued a ruling on the third round of her motion, she deemed it
granted. The ALJ immediately issued a ruling denying the motion. Despite
this, two weeks later, Zhu filed a statement stating that her motion was
“granted by default” because Respondents had not filed a response “within
the time allowed.”

3

ZHU v. HONEYWELL/HONEYWELL
Decision of the Court

¶9 On May 13, 2025, Zhu filed a lengthy response to Honeywell’s
motion to designate Zhu a vexatious litigant. She also filed a form used to
request a hearing when challenging a notice or decision issued by a carrier
or the ICA, apparently as a way to request a hearing on the vexatious
litigant motion. Subsequently, she continued to file responses to
Honeywell’s motion while the ruling was pending. By the time the Chief
ALJ issued his ruling on June 20, 2025, Zhu had filed six more responses
consisting of 64 total pages. Her responses focused on alleged harassment
of her by Honeywell’s counsel.

¶10 The Chief ALJ reviewed the record and found Zhu’s
“repeated filings of the same, or substantially similar, discovery motions
and motions to change judge, after rulings have been issued” constituted
vexatious conduct. He based this finding on the multiple motions to change
ALJ and “multiple motions related to most aspects of pre-hearing
discovery.” He ordered that Zhu “may not file any new requests for relief,
any new motions for change of judge, or related to change of judge, or new
motions or requests related to any matter already determined in [the case]
related to the four claims joined in that matter.” He also ordered that “for
all other requests or motions,” Zhu “may not file new requests or motions
without obtaining leave of the presiding administrative law judge.”

¶11 Zhu requested administrative review of the limitation order,
objecting to the lack of an evidentiary hearing and claiming Honeywell’s
motion was retaliatory in response to Zhu’s objections to counsel’s conduct.
She denied she intended to harass anyone and claimed the ALJ ignored
opposing counsel’s “violations.” She raised many perceived problems with
the discovery process, topics not relevant to the order at issue, in her
lengthy request. During the time given for Honeywell to respond, Zhu filed
multiple documents arguing her position.

¶12 The Chief ALJ reconsidered the record and affirmed the
limitation order, pointing out that the order “limits [Zhu]’s ability to file
new claims, or new filings related to issues already determined in the
present litigation—without leave of the presiding administrative law
judge.” He also correctly noted that the statute did not require an
evidentiary hearing.

¶13 Zhu filed this statutory special action for review of the
limitation order. On the same day as she filed that petition, Zhu’s case was
dismissed due to her failure to cooperate with the process. Zhu did not file
a petition for review of that dismissal. We have jurisdiction under Article

4

ZHU v. HONEYWELL/HONEYWELL
Decision of the Court

VI, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(4) and
23-951(A).

DISCUSSION

¶14 As a grant of injunctive relief, we review a vexatious-litigant
order for an abuse of discretion. See Madison v. Groseth, 230 Ariz. 8, 13 ¶ 16
n.8 (App. 2012) (vexatious litigant order essentially operates as injunctive
relief); Ahwatukee Custom Ests. Mgmt. Ass’n v. Turner, 196 Ariz. 631, 634 ¶ 5
(App. 2000) (grant or denial of injunctive relief within “the sound discretion
of the trial court”). While courts have inherent authority to sanction
vexatious litigants, Madison, 230 Ariz. at 14 ¶ 17, executive agencies like the
ICA have only the authority given them by the legislature. See Facilitec, Inc.
v. Hibbs, 206 Ariz. 486, 488 ¶ 10 (2003). The Arizona legislature has
authorized the ICA Chief ALJ to designate a pro se litigant as a “vexatious
litigant” in specific and limited circumstances defined as “vexatious
conduct.” A.R.S. § 23-941.02(C), (D). If a pro se litigant has engaged in
vexatious conduct, the statute authorizes the ICA to restrict filing
privileges, but such restrictions must be entered sparingly and
appropriately and be narrowly and specifically tailored to the
circumstances. See Madison, 230 Ariz. at 14 ¶¶ 17-18. Moreover, a vexatious
litigant designation “applies only to the claim at issue before the
administrative law judge.” A.R.S. § 23-941.02(A). Under the statute, those
designated as vexatious litigants “may not file a new request for hearing,
pleading, motion or other document without prior leave of the
administrative law judge.” A.R.S. § 23-941.02(B).

¶15 A pro se litigant who engages in repeated filings of requests
for relief that have been previously decided has committed vexatious
conduct. A.R.S. § 23-941.02(D)(1)(f). The Chief ALJ found Zhu repeatedly
filed motions for a change of judge after that motion had been denied. The
record supports that finding. He also found repeated filings of discovery
motions, which the record also supports.

¶16 The limitation order issued by the Chief ALJ restricted Zhu
from filing motions on issues the presiding ALJ has previously decided. It
also prevented Zhu from filing new motions without first seeking prior
leave to file them from the presiding ALJ. This did not prevent Zhu from
filing motions on issues that had not been decided. Instead, it put a buffer
between Zhu and Respondents to curtail the excessive filings. As such, it
was tailored, as contemplated by the statute, to address the vexatious
conduct.

5

ZHU v. HONEYWELL/HONEYWELL
Decision of the Court

¶17 In sum, the record supports the Chief ALJ’s finding that Zhu
engaged in vexatious conduct. The resulting order was narrowly drawn
and restricted Zhu from refiling a motion that had been denied and from
serial filings of other motions. We find no error.

CONCLUSION

¶18 We affirm.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

6