Az Public v. Maricopa ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                     ANOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
    IN THE
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION ONE
    ARIZONA PUBLIC INTEGRITY ALLIANCE, INC. and
    PACE ELLSWORTH,
    Plaintiffs/Appellants,
    v.
    MARICOPA COUNTY SPECIAL HEALTH CARE DISTRICT;
    BETSEY BAYLESS; MARY A. HARDEN; MARK DEWANE;
    SUSAN GERARD; ELBERT BICKNELL;
    TERENCE McMAHON; and MERCY MARICOPA
    INTEGRATED CARE,
    Defendants/Appellees.
    No. 1 CA-CV 14-0604
    FILED 10-8-2015
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. CV2013-009292
    The Honorable Randall H. Warner, Judge
    The Honorable Douglas Rayes, Judge (Retired)
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Tiffany & Bosco, PA, Phoenix
    By Christopher A. LaVoy, Richard E. Oney
    Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants
    Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Phoenix
    By Gary L. Birnbaum, Andrew L. Pringle, Bradley A. Burns
    Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Maricopa County Special Health Care District,
    Bayless, Harden, Dewane, Gerard, Bicknell & McMahon
    Coppersmith Brockelman, PLC,
    By Roopali H. Desai, Andrew S. Gordon, Melissa A. Soliz
    Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Maurice Portley joined.
    O R O Z C O, Judge:
    ¶1            Arizona Public Integrity Alliance, Incorporated (APIA) and
    Pace Ellsworth (collectively Appellants) appeal the trial court’s grant of a
    motion to dismiss in favor of Maricopa County Special Health Care District
    (the District), Betsey Bayless, Mary A. Harden, Mark Dewane, Susan
    Gerard, Elbert Bicknell, Terence McMahon, and Mercy Maricopa Integrated
    Care (MMIC) (collectively Appellees). For the following reasons, we affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    ¶2            APIA is an Arizona nonprofit corporation founded to
    “advance the principles of limited, constitutional government[,] integrity
    and accountability in government and public officials[,] government fiscal
    responsibility[,] and lower taxes.” Ellsworth serves as an APIA director.
    ¶3            The District is “a special healthcare district and a political
    subdivision of the State of Arizona.” It operates several healthcare centers
    including the Maricopa Medical Center, which is the largest public hospital
    in Arizona. In both 2012 and 2013, Bayless, the District’s President
    2
    AZ PUBLIC et al. v. MARICOPA et al.
    Decision of the Court
    Emeritus, together with Appellees Harden, Dewane, Gerard, Bicknell, and
    McMahon served as board members.
    ¶4            The District holds a minority membership interest in MMIC,
    also a nonprofit Arizona corporation. In 2013, the Arizona Department of
    Health Services awarded MMIC a contract to become the Maricopa County
    Regional Behavioral Health Authority (RBHA) to provide integrated
    medical and behavioral healthcare services to Medicaid eligible adults with
    serious mental illnesses. The District provided an initial $5 million capital
    contribution to MMIC and subsequently executed a $5 million promissory
    note payable upon commencement of the RBHA contract (the transaction).
    ¶5            Appellants brought suit, arguing the District’s membership
    interest in MMIC violated Article 9, Section 7, of the Arizona Constitution.
    Appellants also alleged the District’s initial $5 million contribution was
    paid “from one or more accounts containing funds derived from the
    District’s property tax levy or comingled with them” in violation of Article
    9, Sections 3 and 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised
    Statutes (A.R.S.) section 48-5561. Moreover, Appellants claimed that the
    amount of property taxes levied for the District increased from $57.9 million
    in 2013 to $62.5 million in 2014 and by 56% since 2006.
    ¶6            Appellants asserted that APIA had standing to sue in a
    representative capacity on behalf of its directors. Alternatively, Appellants
    claimed that Ellsworth had standing as a taxpayer and that both Appellants
    had “common law standing” to bring suit. Appellants sought, inter alia,
    declaratory and injunctive relief and an award for civil penalties.
    ¶7           The trial court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss, finding
    Appellants lacked standing to assert their claims. The court also denied
    Appellants’ request for leave to file a second amended complaint.
    Appellants timely appealed and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6,
    section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21.A.1
    and -2101.A.1 (West 2015).1
    DISCUSSION
    ¶8           We review an order granting a motion to dismiss de novo.
    Coleman v. City of Mesa, 
    230 Ariz. 352
    , 355, ¶ 7 (2012). We accept all facts
    1     We cite the current version of applicable statutes when no revisions
    material to this decision have since occurred.
    3
    AZ PUBLIC et al. v. MARICOPA et al.
    Decision of the Court
    asserted by the non-moving party as true. McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA,
    Inc., 
    220 Ariz. 71
    , 73, ¶ 2 (App. 2009).
    I.     Standing
    ¶9             Appellants first assert that their amended complaint alleged
    sufficient facts to establish their standing to bring suit as taxpayers. We
    review a trial court’s determination of whether a party has standing de
    novo. Aegis of Ariz., L.L.C. v. Town of Marana, 
    206 Ariz. 557
    , 562, ¶ 16 (App.
    2003).
    ¶10            To determine a taxpayer's standing, a court must consider
    what interest a taxpayer is protecting. Dail v. City of Phoenix, 
    128 Ariz. 199
    ,
    201 (App. 1980). In Dail, a taxpayer (Dail) brought an action against the
    City of Phoenix and Presley of Arizona, requesting that the court void the
    contract between the city and Presley. 
    Dail, 128 Ariz. at 200
    . The trial court
    granted a motion for summary judgment against Dail, finding that he
    lacked standing. 
    Id. We held
    that in order “to have standing a [taxpayer]
    must be able to demonstrate a direct expenditure of funds that were
    generated through taxation, an increase levy of tax, or a pecuniary loss
    attributable to the challenged transaction.” 
    Id. at 202.
    Moreover, we noted
    that the rationale behind taxpayer standing is to permit taxpayers to protect
    their “equitable ownership” of expended funds and their liability to
    replenish them. 
    Id. at 201-02
    (citation omitted). We concluded that Dail did
    not have standing because the disputed transaction was not funded from
    taxpayer funds. 
    Id. at 202.
    ¶11            In this case, the trial court found that Appellants did not have
    standing to challenge the transaction because they failed to allege sufficient
    facts that the transaction fell into one of the Dail categories and to state a
    claim upon which relief could be granted. The court concluded, “At best,
    an inference could be drawn that tax funds might have been expended. This
    falls short of Ellsworth’s burden under Dail.”
    ¶12             It is undisputed that the District is funded, in part, through
    property tax revenues. The first amended complaint asserted that the taxes
    levied on behalf of the District increased from $57.9 million in 2013 to $62.5
    million in 2014. However, the amended complaint did not allege a causal
    relationship between the transaction and the tax-levy increase. Because
    Appellants did not allege an increased tax levy attributable to the challenged
    transaction, the trial court correctly found that Appellants cannot predicate
    their standing under the second Dail factor. 
    Id. (emphasis added).
    4
    AZ PUBLIC et al. v. MARICOPA et al.
    Decision of the Court
    ¶13           The amended complaint also alleged the District’s $5 million
    payment to MMIC came from “one or more accounts containing funds
    derived from the District’s property tax levy or commingled with them.”
    Appellees argue Appellants failed to allege a direct expenditure of tax
    funds under Dail. The amended complaint alleged the District is funded,
    in part, through property tax revenues and Appellants alleged that the
    transaction was funded via an account containing or comingled with
    property tax funds. And, Appellants conceded in oral argument before
    this court that they cannot allege that the $5 million came from an account
    “containing funds derived from the District’s property tax levy.”
    ¶14           As Appellees correctly contend “[t]he allegation that payment
    was made from an account containing ‘commingled’ funds from multiple
    sources[,] without more[,] does not allege that funds from a particular
    source were expended.” Thus, we affirm the trial court’s ruling that
    Appellants lacked standing.
    II.           Leave to Amend
    ¶15             Appellants requested leave to further amend their complaint.
    The trial court denied Appellant’s motion “based on undue delay and
    futility in the amendment.” We review the trial court’s denial for an abuse
    of discretion. Tumacacori Mission Land Dev., Ltd. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 
    231 Ariz. 517
    , 519, ¶ 4 (App. 2013).
    ¶16            “Leave to amend shall be freely given when justice requires.”
    Ariz. R. Civ. P. 15(a)1.B. The trial court has discretion to grant leave, but
    amendments should be granted liberally so that cases may be decided on
    the merits instead of on “mere technicalities of pleadings.” Cathemer v.
    Hunter, 
    27 Ariz. App. 780
    , 786 (App. 1976). “While leave to amend may be
    denied when the proposed amendment is futile, it should be granted when
    the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon may be a proper subject
    of relief.” Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, 
    215 Ariz. 458
    , 471, ¶ 40 (App. 2007)
    (citations and punctuation omitted).
    ¶17          The trial court properly denied Appellants’ request to amend
    its complaint on grounds of futility. We agree with the trial court that
    Appellants’ requested amendment would be futile because Appellants
    conceded at oral argument that they cannot allege a direct expenditure from
    tax funds.
    5
    AZ PUBLIC et al. v. MARICOPA et al.
    Decision of the Court
    II.    Fees
    ¶18            Appellants request an award for their attorney fees under the
    private attorney general doctrine. See Cave Creek Unified Sch. Dist. v. Ducey,
    
    231 Ariz. 342
    , 353, ¶ 34 (App. 2013) (“The doctrine is an equitable rule which
    permits courts in their discretion to award attorneys’ fees to a party who
    has vindicated a right that: (1) benefits a large number of people; (2)
    requires private enforcement; and (3) is of societal importance.”) (citation
    and internal punctuation omitted). Because Appellants were not successful
    on appeal, we deny the request.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶19          For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal
    of Appellants’ complaint.
    :ama
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CV 14-0604

Filed Date: 10/8/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2015