Qasimyar v. Maricopa
1 CA-TX 19-0008
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Feb 11, 2021Background
- For tax year 2017 Maricopa County Assessor classified certain single-family residences as class four and calculated limited property value (LPV) using "Rule A." Taxpayers contended owner-occupation made those properties class three and therefore a "change in use" required LPV under "Rule B," which would lower LPV and taxes.
- Taxpayers petitioned the Assessor and appealed to the State Board of Equalization; the Board reclassified the properties as class three but did not change LPVs.
- Taxpayers sued in tax court, obtained partial summary judgment (holding a change in classification based on use triggers a new LPV under Rule B) and moved for class certification on behalf of similarly situated Maricopa County property owners.
- The tax court certified a class defined as all Maricopa County parcels reclassified between class three and class four for 2017 where Rule A (improperly) produced a higher LPV than Rule B, and left issues of notice, final class membership, damages, and fees for later proceedings.
- Maricopa County appealed only the class-certification order; the Court of Appeals affirmed the certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / exhaustion of administrative remedies | Taxpayers sued directly in tax court under A.R.S. § 42-16201(A); administrative exhaustion not required. | County argued plaintiffs failed to preserve representative administrative claims and so tax court lacked jurisdiction to certify a class. | Court: County waived exhaustion argument; statutory law permits direct tax-court appeal, so jurisdiction exists to certify class. |
| Rule 23(a) — Numerosity | Class comprises thousands of parcels (list showed >21,000; >10,000 after exclusions), so joinder impracticable. | County argued exact class size unknown and many listed owners ineligible. | Court: Numerosity satisfied; precise count not required and >10,000 likely members is sufficient. |
| Rule 23(a) — Commonality/Typicality/Adequacy | Central common question (whether Rule A or Rule B applies to reclassified parcels) and named plaintiffs’ claims align with class; counsel adequate. | County claimed conflicts (owners with multiple parcels or who benefited from Rule A) and various parcel-specific exceptions would defeat typicality/adequacy. | Court: Common issues predominate; typicality and adequacy met (opt-outs and later refinement of membership can address exceptions). |
| Rule 23(b)(3) — Predominance & Superiority | Class action is superior and efficient to adjudicate many small, similar valuation claims; common questions predominate. | County argued individual actions feasible (attorneys’ fees) and manageability problems. | Court: (b)(3) satisfied — discretionary fee awards do not make individual suits practical; class mechanism superior and manageable with refinements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (class certification requires rigorous analysis of Rule 23 prerequisites)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (commonality and the requirement that a common contention resolve central issues for all class members)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (commonality and typicality tend to merge; guideposts for class appropriateness)
- Arizona Dep’t of Revenue v. Dougherty, 200 Ariz. 515 (class device can preserve administrative remedies for others when statute requires exhaustion)
- ESI Ergonomic Sols., LLC v. United Artists Theatre Cir., Inc., 203 Ariz. 94 (Arizona courts follow federal Rule 23 jurisprudence)
- Ferrara v. 21st Century N. Am. Ins. Co., 245 Ariz. 377 (numerosity standards)
- London v. Green Acres Tr., 159 Ariz. 136 (numerosity discussion; no bright line)
- Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc., 582 F.2d 507 (opt-out protects against potential conflicts within class)