Agenda - Council - 10/14/2025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ARCADIA OSBORN, et al. v. CLEAR CHANNEL, et al. Opinion of the Court ¶7 After briefing and oral argument, the superior court determined that the plaintiffs failed to plead the special damages necessary to qualify as "persons aggrieved" under the statute and dismissed the complaint. AONA and the Individual Plaintiffs appealed. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1). DISCUSSION ¶8 "Whether a party has standing is a question of law we review de novo." Pawn lst, L.L.C. v. City of Phoenix, 231 Ariz. 309, 311, ¶ 11 (App. 2013). When ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, "we consider the facts alleged in the complaint to be true . and determine whether the complaint, construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, sufficiently sets forth a valid claim." Scenic Ariz. v. City of Phx. Bd. of Adjustment, 228 Ariz. 419, 421-22, ¶ 5 (App. 2011) (quoting Douglas v. Governing Bd. of the Window Rock Consol. Sch. Dist, No. 8, 206 Ariz. 344, 346, ¶ 4 (App. 2003)). I. The Individual Plaintiffs. 119 The Individual Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to statutory standing as "person[s] aggrieved" under A.R.S. § 9-462.06(K) and that they are entitled to "procedural" and "First Amendment" standing due to the constitutional claims raised in their First Amended Complaint. A. Persons Aggrieved ¶10 "If a statute authorizes judicial review of an administrative decision, deciding whether a plaintiff has standing 'must begin with a determination of whether the statute in question authorizes review at the behest of the plaintiff.' Scenic Ariz., 228 Ariz. at 422, ¶ 7 (quoting Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 732 (1972). Here, A.R.S. § 9-462.06(K) authorizes a "person aggrieved by a decision of the legislative body or board" to file a special action in superior court for judicial review of that decision. ¶11 We interpret the term "person aggrieved" broadly, with an eye towards "promot[ing] the ends of justice." Id. at 422, ¶ 7. But to have standing to bring an action under the statute, "a plaintiff must allege 'particularized harm' resulting from the [Board's] decision." Ctr. Bay Gardens, L.L.C. v. City of Tempe City Council, 214 Ariz. 353, 358, ¶ 20 (App. 2007). "An allegation of generalized harm that is shared alike by all or a large class of citizens generally is not sufficient to confer standing." Sears v. Hull,192 Ariz. 65, 69,1116 (1998). In other words, "[g]eneral economic losses 4