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

Home

ARCADIA OSBORN, et al, v. CLEAR CHANNEL, et al. Opinion of the Court ¶20 First, the Individual Plaintiffs assert that they "have standing to raise the constitutional rights of others if a violation of those rights will directly harm them." But we have previously identified three requirements for litigants seeking to assert standing based on the constitutional rights of a third party: (1) the litigant must have a substantial relationship to the third party, (2) the third party must be unable to assert the constitutional rights on its own behalf, and (3) failure to grant the litigant standing must dilute the rights of the third party. Kerr v. Killian, 197 Ariz. 213, 217, ¶ 16 (App. 2000). Because litigants failed to allege a substantial relationship to the parties whose rights they sought to raise, the superior court correctly determined they lacked standing to bring their constitutional claims. ¶21 Finally, the Individual Plaintiffs claim the superior court erred in dismissing their due process claims. Specifically, they claim the court erred in relying on the "incorrect factual statement" that Individual Plaintiffs "did not file the appeal that led to the Board hearing." But the First Amended Complaint, which the superior court was required to accept as true, clearly states that the appeal was filed only by "Plaintiff UPP and Plaintiff AONA," not the Individual Plaintiffs.' The superior court did not err in relying on a factual assertion contained in the First Amended Complaint. See Scenic Ariz., 228 Ariz. at 421-22, ¶ 5 (stating that courts must consider the facts alleged in the complaint to be true). ¶22 The Individual Plaintiffs' due process claims focus on the Board's denial of their request for an "automatic continuance." Non - appellant parties to an administrative hearing are entitled to procedural due process. See Rouse v. Scottsdale Unified Sch. Dist. No. 48, 156 Ariz. 369, 371 (App. 1987) ("We start from the premise that there are certain 'fundamental' procedural requisites which a person is entitled to receive at an administrative hearing which is quasi-judicial in nature."). But even if the Individual Plaintiffs were wrongfully denied an "automatic continuance," they acknowledge that the Board granted their continuance after hearing arguments on the issue. Therefore, any due process claims are moot. See Simms v. Ariz. Racing Comm., 253 Ariz. 214, 220, ¶ 30 (App. 2022) (finding a due process claim moot where the plaintiff received the proper remedy through other means). ' Because AONA does not raise the issue in its own opening brief, we determine they have waived the issue on appeal. See Robert Schalkenbach Found. v. Lincoln Found., Inc., 208 Ariz. 176, 180, ¶ 17 (App. 2004) ("Generally, we will consider an issue not raised in an appellant's opening brief as abandoned or conceded."). 7