Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix
231 Ariz. 309
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Pawn appeals after Board of Adjustment granted a variance to Central Pawn’s operator at 3155 E. McDowell Rd.
- Pawn sought judicial review under A.R.S. § 9-462.06(E) and argued it had standing as a City of Phoenix taxpayer.
- The City’s zoning ordinance requires a use permit for pawn businesses in C-2 and a 500-foot setback from residential districts.
- Jaehimek applied for a use permit and a variance from the 500-foot requirement; the Board granted the variance.
- The superior court granted summary judgment to the City and Jaehimek, ruling Pawn lacked standing, and Pawn appealed.
- The court reverses, holding Pawn has standing as a Phoenix taxpayer under § 9-462.06(K).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Pawn have standing to challenge the Board’s decision as a Phoenix taxpayer? | Pawn relies on § 9-462.06(K) allowing taxpayers to sue. | Jachimek argues Pawn is not an aggrieved party and cannot show injury. | Pawn has standing as a Phoenix taxpayer. |
| Does the last antecedent rule affect the interpretation of § 9-462.06(K)? | Pawn contends the statute allows broader taxpayer standing. | City argues narrower interpretation limits standing to affected taxpayers. | Statute permits standing for taxpayers of the affected municipality. |
| Should Scottsdale v. McDowell Mountain Irrigation apply to limit standing? | Pawn argues it should not restrict standing as statutory text controls. | City relies on McDowell Mountain to require pecuniary loss for standing. | McDowell Mountain does not control this standing question. |
| Does Blanchard preclude beneficial standing for taxpayers? | Pawn distinguishes Blanchard as pre-9-462.06(K) and not controlling here. | City argues Blanchard supports limiting standing to those with particularized harm. | Blanchard is not controlling on § 9-462.06(K) standing here. |
| Is Pawn entitled to attorneys’ fees on appeal? | Pawn seeks fees under Rule 21. | Rule 21 requires specific statutory or contractual authorization for fees. | Pawn’s fee request denied for failure to specify authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Scottsdale v. McDowell Mountain Irrigation and Drainage District, 107 Ariz. 117 (Ariz. 1971) (pecuniary loss speculation bars standing under earlier reasoning)
- Blanchard v. Show Low Planning and Zoning Commission, 196 Ariz. 114 (App. 1999) (taxpayer status alone insufficient when no public funds at issue; reliance pre‑dated § 9-462.06(K))
- Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Bd. of Adjustment, 228 Ariz. 419 (App. 2012) (liberal construction to promote ends of justice in standing questions)
- Ruiz v. Hull, 191 Ariz. 441 (Ariz. 1998) (read statute as a whole; give meaningful operation to each provision)
- Watts v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue, 221 Ariz. 97 (App. 2009) (statutory interpretation with respect to intent and structure)
- Schoenberger v. Bd. of Adjustment of the City of Phoenix, 124 Ariz. 528 (Ariz.) (jurisdictional considerations for Board of Adjustment actions)