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

Home

ARCADIA OSBORN, et aI. v. CLEAR CHANNEL, et al. Opinion of the Court rejected that line of cases. See Ariz, Sch. Bds, Ass'n, Inc. v. State, 252 Ariz. 219, 224, ¶ 18 (2022) (disavowing the trial court's reliance on Vane del Sol Inc, v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013)). Instead, in Arizona, organizations "cannot establish standing if the only injury arises from the effect of a challenged action on the organizations' lobbying activities, or when the service impaired is pure issue -advocacy." Id. (quoting Equal Means Equal v. Ferreiro, 3 F.4th 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2021)) (cleaned up). AONA's efforts to limit digital -billboard conversion— such as organizing neighbors for the purpose of preserving the character of the neighborhood, serving as a source of information gathering and dissemination, and promoting neighborhood goals and objectives as they relate to transportation issues — are pure issue advocacy, and granting standing on that basis would "eviscerat[e] the standing requirement ...." Id ¶29 The second allegation of harm fails for the same reason as the Individual Plaintiffs' allegation of individualized harm. See Supra ¶ 12. AONA does not claim its members are damaged by a special use of the subject intersection. Instead, it relies on their frequency of use and reliance on the intersection for commuter travelaninterest shared by all commuters that travel through the area. As stated above, it is not enough to show that its members suffered the same kind of harm or interference as the general public but to a greater extent or degree. Sears, 192 Ariz. at 70, ¶ 19; see also Hopi Tribe, 245 Ariz. at 401, ¶ 13. III. Standing to Seek Declaratory Relief. ¶30 Appellants further claim the superior court erred in denying them standing under the Arizona Declaratory Judgments Act ("ADJA"). The ADJA allows "[a]ny person ... whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a ... municipal ordinance" to "obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder." A.R.S. § 12-1832. ¶31 The First Amended Complaint mentions the ADJA, but does not include an allegation that plaintiffs' "rights, status or other legal relations are affected by" the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance or any other municipal ordinance. See id. Instead, on nine of the twelve counts raised in the Complaint, plaintiffs seek "declaratory judgment that Defendant Board acted in excess of legal authority.' But in considering a motion to dismiss under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6), "the prayer is not part of the complaint." Citizens' Comm. for Recall of Jack Williams v. Marston, 109 Ariz, 188,192 (1973). And even if it were, using declaratory language does not transform a special -action challenge to an action seeking declaratory judgment. See Lecky v. Staley, 6 Ariz. App. 556, 558-59 (1967) (holding that 9