399 P.3d 686
Ariz. Ct. App.2017Background
- The City of Mesa and ADOT jointly operated a stormwater System that funneled runoff from U.S. 60 and a ~20 sq. mile Tributary Area into Emerald Park, a terminal retention basin lacking an effective emergency overflow.
- After a heavy storm on September 8, 2014, Defendants collected and routed additional stormwater into Emerald Park; the basin overflowed and flooded three subdivisions where Plaintiffs lived, causing property damage.
- Plaintiffs sued seeking an injunction to stop Defendants from concentrating, diverting, and pumping stormwater into Emerald Park in ways that would exceed its capacity and use plaintiffs’ properties as ad hoc overflow without just compensation.
- The State moved to dismiss, arguing A.R.S. § 12-1802(4) and (6) barred injunctive relief against public officers enforcing statutes or exercising public office; the superior court dismissed under § 12-1802(6).
- The court of appeals reviewed de novo whether § 12-1802 precluded injunctive relief and whether Plaintiffs alleged unlawful conduct by public officers within the meaning of the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.R.S. § 12-1802(4) bars injunctive relief | Plaintiffs: not seeking to enjoin enforcement of valid statutes but to stop Defendants from exceeding authority and unlawfully using Plaintiffs’ land as overflow | State: § 12-1802(4) prohibits injunctions against enforcement of public statutes authorizing drainage/management | Held: § 12-1802(4) does not bar relief because Plaintiffs alleged Defendants exceeded statutory authority and did not seek to enjoin valid statutory enforcement |
| Whether A.R.S. § 12-1802(6) bars injunctive relief | Plaintiffs: § 12-1802(6) inapplicable when officials exceed authority or arbitrarily/unreasonably exercise discretion | State: § 12-1802(6) forbids injunctive relief against lawful exercise of discretionary executive functions; plaintiffs did not allege lack of authority | Held: § 12-1802(6) does not bar relief where officers exceeded authority or exercised discretion arbitrarily/unreasonably; plaintiffs alleged such conduct |
| Separation-of-powers concern over injunction scope | Plaintiffs: availability of injunctive relief at pleading stage is proper; remedy formulation reserved to trial court | State: injunction would require court micromanagement and intrude on executive functions | Held: separation-of-powers arguments address remedy design at later stage; they do not justify dismissal on pleadings |
| Adequacy of damages remedy (takings/compensation) | Plaintiffs: injunction sought; adequacy of legal remedies not litigated below | State: plaintiffs should be limited to damages for taking | Held: argument forfeited (not raised below); court did not decide adequacy of damages remedy on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hislop v. Rodgers, 54 Ariz. 101, 92 P.2d 527 (1939) (predecessor anti-injunction rule: courts may not enjoin enforcement of a valid public statute)
- Council of City of Phoenix v. Winn, 70 Ariz. 316, 220 P.2d 222 (1950) (court cannot enjoin enforcement of a valid statute when challenge does not attack validity)
- McCluskey v. Sparks, 80 Ariz. 15, 291 P.2d 791 (1955) (injunction permissible where officer applied statute beyond authority)
- Crane Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 63 Ariz. 426, 163 P.2d 656 (1946) (anti-injunction statute inapplicable when officers exceed authority)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 108 Ariz. 154, 494 P.2d 26 (1972) (unlawful exercise of authority may include arbitrary or unreasonable acts; merits/facts for trial)
- Wales v. Tax Commission, 100 Ariz. 181, 412 P.2d 472 (1966) (courts may enjoin arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of discretionary power)
- Zeigler v. Kirschner, 162 Ariz. 77, 781 P.2d 64 (App. 1989) (A.R.S. § 12-1802 does not bar injunctions where officials exceed authority or act arbitrarily)
- Board of Regents v. City of Tempe, 88 Ariz. 299, 356 P.2d 399 (1960) (injunction appropriate when municipality attempts to apply codes beyond its authority)
Conclusion: The court reversed dismissal, holding §§ 12-1802(4) and (6) do not bar Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief where plaintiffs allege defendants exceeded authority or arbitrarily/unreasonably exercised discretion; case remanded for further proceedings.