Cited by

(stating “we presume that the [L]egislature, when it passes a statute, knows the existing laws”).

Sec., Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2000) ().

The doctrine’s main principle is that “the legislature, when it passes a statute, knows the existing laws.”

1 I. Fraud, Misrepresentation or Misconduct.

(“[W]e presume that the [L]egislature, when it passes a statute, knows the existing laws.”).

Conversely, a procedural law “prescribes the method of enforcing such rights or obtaining redress.” Hall, 149 Ariz. at 138 (); see also Aranda, 198 Ariz. at 470 ¶ 12 (explaining a procedural law “relates to the manner and means by which a right to recover is enforced or provides no more than the method by which to proceed”); (“[T]he methods of perfecting and processing such rights are procedural.”); (“[T]he adjective, remedial or procedural law is that which prescribes the method of enforcing th

-59 (1984); Webb, 134 Ariz. at 186.

(noting the joint pretrial statement controls the proceedings and has the effect of amending the pleadings unless otherwise modified at trial).

“[M]ere carelessness is not sufficient reason to set aside a default judgment.”

(noting that one purpose of the pretrial statement is to prevent surprise to a party).

In doing so, we note the Arizona Supreme Court’s guidance that “[t]he law favors resolution on the merits,” so “if the trial court has doubt about whether to vacate a default judgment, it should rule in favor of the moving party.”

First, “if the trial court has doubt about whether to vacate a default judgment, it should rule in favor of the moving party.” ¶ 11 (2018) ().

A procedural law “does not operate to abridge, enlarge or modify the rules of decision.” (citation and quotation omitted).

“The law favors resolution on the merits, and therefore if the trial court has doubt about whether to vacate a default judgment, it should rule in favor of the moving party.” ().

Marianne N. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 14 (2017) (-58 (1984)).

And just as we presume that the legislature is aware of the law when it enacts a statute, we presume voters are as well.

(courts presume that the legislature knows the existing laws when it passes a statute).

–59 (1984); BYS Inc., 228 Ariz. at 577, ¶ 14.

and Richas v. Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, the court found defendants made no showing “that their failure to defend or appear and file a timely Answer was the result of excusable neglect.” See Ariz. R. Civ.

Haroutunian v. Valueoptions, Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 2008); (whether excusable neglect exists is a question directed to the sound discretion of the trial court).

But Mother did not establish that she or her counsel acted as “a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances,” which generally requires a showing of “specific duties to calendar due dates or to remind counsel to file pleadings.”