Young v. City of Ketchum
44 P.3d 1157
Idaho
2002
Check Treatment

*1 Jacoby, YOUNG, Baxter D. Fred C. John Judy Bartlett,

White, White, Tom Suhadolnik, Plaintiffs-Appel- Frank lants, KETCHUM, Municipal an Idaho CITY OF Randy Corporation; Guy Coles, Mayor; Hall, Hutchinson, David Maurice Char- Potters, latt and Christine Council Members, City Ketchum, Defendants-

Respondents.

No. 26540. Supreme Court of Falls, Twin November Term.

March 2002.

103 denying Plaintiffs’ Peti- lack of tion for Writ of Prohibition.

I. AND PROCEDURAL

FACTUAL HISTORY Young pro complaint a Baxter filed se against City declaratory relief and the for alleging petition prohibition, for writ of option payment proceeds the from a local City the to the Chamber violates I.C. § 4 seq. 50-1043 et. and Article 8 8 §12 4 of the Article Idaho Constitution. a Several owners Ketchum filed essentially separate complaint, containing arguments. judge same The district consoli- group The dated the two cases. collective Plaintiffs consists of concerned citizens who City. pay property in and to reside taxes validity The crux of this case relates to the professional of a services contract between City The contract Chamber. requires provide “to distribu- Chamber general tion of tourist information to the public provide professional marketing to promote Valley services to the Ketchum Sun marketing required area.” The services Schlender, Chtd., Hailey, City E. appel- providing Lee for the contract include with a argued. lants. E. Lee Schlender center, promote visitor information and to special and market the area and local events. Simms, Margaret City Attorney, J. Ket- services, City In chum; consideration for these respondents. for Margaret J. Simms argued. required pay money, the Chamber option which is raised via the local tax. The Troxell, LLP, Hawley, Hawley, Ennis & option local tax is authorized I.C. 50- Ketchum, appeared as Amicus Curiae for 1044, granting Idaho resort cities the autho- City Valley support of Sun Ketchum, respondent City of but did not implement option nonproper- rization to local participate in argument. the oral ty by majority city’s taxes vote of the City designated The citizens.1 resort TROUT, Justice. Chief city City under I.C. 50-1044. The also (“Plaintiffs”) Young brought Baxter et. al. one-year agreement executed a lease with (“the against City a suit of Ketchum personal related to the Chamber services City”) alleging City’s involvement whereby contract rents office Chamber professional services contract and a related space and the tourist information center from Valley-Ketchum lease with the Sun Chamber $31,000. City for (“the Chamber”) of Commerce violates I.C. City filed a motion to dismiss under seq., § 50-1043 et Article 8 12(b)(6). judge granted The district I.R.C.P. §12 Article of the Idaho Constitution. City’s prejudice motion to dismiss with appeal judge’s the district decision granting grounds on the Plaintiffs lacked Motion to Dismiss for previously upheld Valley, 1. This Court has the constitu- Sun P.2d Co., tionality Valley of the local tax in Sun tially Plaintiffs have suffi- II. examine whether ciently alleged requisite elements of OF REVIEW STANDARD complaint to survive a their 12(b)(6) motion dismiss. judge The district stated the standard 12(b)(6) reviewing motion is the same as *3 III. summary judg applicable that to motions for non-moving as ment. This is true insofar DISCUSSION party entitled to all inferences from is have However, viewed in favor. the record his sufficiently The Plaintiffs have not al- drawn, the once such inferences are motions leged they standing. have 12(b)(6) differently. A are treated motion It is a fundamental tenet of Amer only pleadings at to determine looks jurisprudence person wishing ican that a A a claim for relief has been stated. whether jurisdiction invoke a court’s must stand summary judgment looks to the motion ing. Valkenburgh v. Term Van Citizens for any evidence to see if there are issues of Limits, 124, 1129, 121, 135 Idaho party moving material fact and whether the (2000). ques Standing preliminary is a 1132 judgment is entitled to a as a matter of law. tion to be determined this Court before 12(b) I.R.C.P. states: reaching the of the case. Miles v. merits Co., 635, 637, Idaho Power 116 Idaho 778 If, asserting a motion num- on defense (1989). 757, (6) P.2d 759 The doctrine of stand of the bered to dismiss for failure justiciability. ing subcategory a of Id. at upon pleading to state a claim which relief 639, As this has 778 P.2d at 761. Court granted, plead- can be matters outside noted, imprecise previously the doctrine is ing presented to and excluded 641, apply. and difficult to Id. at 778 P.2d at court, the motion shall be treated as College (citing Valley Forge 763 v. Ameri summary disposed judgment one for United, 464, 752, 102 S.Ct. 70 cans 454 U.S. provided of in Rule 56.... as (1982)). Standing 700 focuses on L.Ed.2d judge made reference to While the district party seeking and not on the issues relief standard, summary judgment it does not adjudicated. party wishes to have any appear that he took other evidence out- 124, 15 1132; at Bound at P.3d consideration, pleadings into side Boundary County, ary Backpackers v. 128 treating purely a motion to the motion as (1996) 1141, Idaho 1145 summary judgment, and not one for dismiss 761). 639, (quoting P.2d at To Miles at 778 there are no affidavits or other controversy satisfy requirement the case or Thus, in the record. we review the evidence standing, litigant “allege or demon a must ruling grant a of the motion to trial court’s as injury a substantial strate an in fact and dismiss, summary judgment. than rather prevent will or requested likelihood the relief (citations injury.” Id. redress the claimed we review an order dismiss When omitted). showing 12(b)(6), requires a of a “dis pursuant This ing a case to I.R.C.P. “fairly palpable injury” traceable non-moving party all infer tinct is entitled to have injury the claimed in his favor. causal connection between ences from the record viewed 639, Co., 960, challenged Miles at conduct.” v. Idaho Power 126 Orthman omitted). (internal (1995) 561, quotations 961, (citing v. 778 P.2d at 761 P.2d 562 Miles 895 Co., showing made of an But if a can be even Idaho Power (1989)). fact, may denied when 757, drawing in be After all P.2d favor, grievance generalized a non-moving party’s we the asserted harm is ferences Id. large class of citizens. relief has been shared all or then ask whether claim for 490, Seldin, 422 (quoting U.S. is not whether the Warth stated. Id. “The issue (1975)); Miles, 2197, L.Ed.2d 343 ultimately prevail, whether S.Ct. plaintiff will but (stating “a P.2d at 763 116 Idaho at to offer evidence to party is entitled (citations challenge a taxpayer may not inter citizen and claims.” Id. support the omitted). Thus, where governmental ini- enactment quotations we must nal maintenance imposed all a restoration and one suffered citizens and alike.”); property Bopp City Sandpoint, upon occupants 110 Ida- all fee owners (1986); pursuant reflecting Greer v. Lewi- the estimat- ho to a formula Club, Inc., Country by particular properties. ston & generated ed traffic Golf reasoning P.2d 719 standing, The Court found anyone pay the fee could have who refused to Based on the standard set forth against him a lien judgment entered above, question the first to be answered is standing. placed property on his to confer alleged whether Plaintiffs have P.2d at 766. Id. at Here, caused actions. Plaintiffs allege they palpable injury” suffer “distinct ripe- have confused the issue of as concerned citizens and owners Brew- ness with *4 living City. complaints in the Their basic injury palpable a distinct ster could show 1) option expenditures tax the attract visitors because the various fees were assessed area, and second homeowners to the which in against personally. The noted them Court up turn has driven the value of land and judicial that review would be avoided until a they pay property increased the amount initiated, at collection action was and such 2) taxes; option actually paid the tax is not time, question require would reso- the same businesses, by paid local but are both ripe- lution. This involves the doctrine of 3) visitors; City residents and the raised ness, standing. not payments cash to make to the Chamber Additionally, are not in the reducing option expenditures tax for basic fire, government police, position plaintiffs the in Brewster. functions such as E same as service, sidewalks, and maintenance of Plaintiffs in case have al None of the this Thus, by increasing they this reduction leged offset the are business owners. none against property pay op levies tax base. of the Plaintiffs could refuse to subsequently challenge it. As tion tax and if injury Even this constitutes above, standing party noted focuses on fact, it is an indirect effect that is shared party seeking relief and not on the issues the alike taxpayers all citizens and adjudicated. wishes to have Van Valken City. allegations Plaintiffs have made no that 124, 1132; Boundary burgh at 15 P.3d at any such an different or distinct 375, Backpackers 913 P.2d at 1145. at from other citizen or owner in object plaintiff is not himself the “[W]hen the Ketchum area. This is insufficient to government action inaction he chal of the or standing. 124, confer at lenges, standing precluded, not but is ordi 1132; 641-42, 15 P.3d at Miles at 778 P.2d at narily ‘substantially more difficult’ to estab Moreover, 763-64. a concerned citizen who 384, (quoting at 913 P.2d at 1154 lish.” Id. government seeks to ensure the abides 555, Lujan Wildlife, 504 U.S. v. Defenders of the law does not have Student (1992) 562, 2130, 112 S.Ct. 119 L.Ed.2d 351 Payette County, Fund v. Loan 125 Idaho (citations omitted)). 236, (Ct.App.1994). 875 P.2d Therefore, allege any Plaintiffs have failed to consistently This has found a lack of Court palpable injury fairly distinct has standing in which the were cases traceable causal connection between the ground generally. on the same as citizens challenged claimed and the conduct. See, Ass’n, e.g., Inc. v. Selkirk-Priest Basin 128 Idaho 919 P.2d State brief, they argue In Plaintiffs’ of (1996) 1032, (plaintiffs standing lacked grant standing prevent any refusal to would they pecu- failed to because had “establish judicial review unless and until a business from personal liar or that is different pay owner in Ketchum refuses to by any other of the that suffered member City sup- In enforces collection. public”); Equal Oppor- Educ. contention, Idaho Sch. port of this Plaintiffs cite Brew- Evans, 573, Pocatello, 502, tunity 123 Idaho City ster v. of (1993) (taxpayers/citizens did not stand- Brewster involved funding city ing to assert lack of school because passed an ordinance of Pocatello injury); validity professional of the services con- palpable they did not suffer a distinct City Sandpoint, tract and related lease between Bopp City of (1986) (municipal citizen lacked the Chamber. standing plaintiff if suffered because even Similarly, parties must also have peculiar injury, special it some was can consider the before this Court alike); him; by all residents rather shared Thus, for petition prohibition. for a writ of Club, Inc., Country v. Lewiston & Greer Golf above, reasons set forth we cannot the same (1959) (taxpayers P.2d 719 address this issue. standing to disannex- did not have invalidate ing though they could suffer ordinance even IY. in- property taxes such increased creased burden would be common to all such CONCLUSION city special and not a inter- challenge Plaintiffs lack injury peculiar plaintiffs). to the est or validity constitutionality standing be- Recently, this found Court and related professional services contract petitioners alleged they cause the would suf- the Chamber. lease between the injury” right palpable to their fer “distinct judge’s granting the The district order Secretary if were allowed to vote State is affirmed. motion to dismiss *5 question (regard- implement the in to statute pledge). Valkenburgh ing a term limits Van SCHROEDER, and WALTERS Justices Limits, Term Citizens EISMANN, concur. for (2000). 1129, 1133 The Court KIDWELL, Dissenting. Justice injury alleged not concluded that was majority opinion in by taxpayers suffered all citizens Because this Court’s to be Term Lim- Valkenburgh of Idaho because the statute v. Citizens For State Van (2000), its, adversely impacted only those di- implemented by lim- registered opposed contrary the term to that reached voters who rects a result case, respectfully pledge, supported majority candidates who in I dissent. its or who this opposed pledge. limits The Court the term in I dissented Van “[tjhose support the term reasoned that who in only injury alleged by petitioners injured by pledge ... not the use limits are opposed the who that case—that those voters legend, and it in fact benefits of the ballot pledge initiative when it was term limits pledge support those who the term limits injured imple it adopted would be when was increasing likelihood their candidate will the ballot —did not constitute mented on peti- concluded the be elected.” This Court petition injury suffered personalized alleged not suffered tioners had alike, taxpayers not all voters or ers but citizens, to have petitioners found the all holding in especially light in of this Court’s constitutionality challenge the standing to State, 128 Assoc. v. Basin Selkirk-Priest pledge statute. The Court the term limits Although I 919 P.2d 1032 challenged statute ex- also noted that majority Valkenburgh, the dissented Van sponsors of pressly granted proponents and this in that is now the law of opinion case standing constitu- statute to defend its alleged plaintiffs in this case state. The tionality. upon opposition to the their based Chamber, the diversion Valkenburgh, contract with plaintiffs in Van

Unlike the emergency services revenues from point to in this case do not contract, and to that expenditures citizens related alike all to that is shared resulting taxes they increase in the nor have inju alleged These cover for that diversion. requested prevent will alleged that the relief those Therefore, every personalized as bit as injury. ries redress the claimed Valken reasons, alleged by petitioners agree foregoing we with prevent further confusion burgh. In order to lack judge that Plaintiffs district standing, to be of the law of constitutionality of and dilution cannot address Valkenburgh, and in ac- consistent with Van decisis,

cordance with the doctrine of stare this Court should hold challenge the this case have court’s actions and reverse the district granting the defendants’ motion to dis- order miss. PEARL, M.D., M. Petitioner-

Janice

Appellant, OF BOARD PROFESSIONAL DISCI- PLINE OF the IDAHO STATE BOARD MEDICINE, Respondent.

OF

No. 26696. Supreme Court of Boise, December 2001 Term.

March 2002.