Laserfiche WebLink
ARCADIA OSBORN, et al. v. CLEAR CHANNEL, et al. <br />Opinion of the Court <br />II. The Arcadia Osborn Neighborhood Association. <br />¶23 AONA raises claims of both representational standing on <br />behalf of its members and direct organizational standing. <br />A. Representational Standing <br />¶24 The test for representational standing in Arizona is "whether, <br />given all the circumstances in the case, the [organization] has a legitimate <br />interest in an actual controversy involving its members and whether <br />judicial economy and administration will be promoted by allowing <br />representational appearance." Amory Park Neighborhood Assn v. Episcopal <br />Cmty. Svcs., 148 Ariz, 1, 6 (1985). A primary consideration in this test is <br />whether the association's members would have standing to sue in their own <br />right. Home Builders Ass' n of Cent. Ariz. v. Kard, 219 Ariz. 374, 377, ¶ 10 (App. <br />2008). <br />¶25 AONA alleges that its members are persons aggrieved <br />because they work in and commute through the area, But AONA does not <br />identify particularized harm, injury in fact, or damage peculiar to any <br />specific member. See Scenic Ariz., 228 Ariz. at 424, ¶ 14. Instead, AONA <br />relies on the standing arguments raised by the Individual Plaintiffs. These <br />arguments are insufficient. See supra ¶¶ 10-22. Because AONA has failed <br />to establish individual standing on behalf of any of its members, it cannot <br />assert representational standing. Cf.. Armory Park, 148 Ariz, at 6 (finding <br />standing where an organization would "adequately and fairly represent the <br />interests of those of its members who would have had standing in their <br />individual capacities") <br />B. Direct Standing <br />¶26 Finally, AONA claims the superior court erred in finding that <br />it lacks direct standing to challenge the Board's decision. The superior court <br />did not err. <br />¶27 The First Amended Complaint lists two ways the Board's <br />decision could harm AONA. First, the decision "would threaten AONA's <br />mission (and successes) in limiting digital billboard conversion" and <br />second, the intersection adjacent to the billboards is "probably ... located <br />on one of the non -highway commuter routes most used by [its] members." <br />¶28 Turning to the first allegation of harm, AONA points to <br />federal case law to assert that diversion of resources is sufficient to show a <br />concrete injury justifying standing. But our supreme court has recently <br />8 <br />