How to Challenge and Overturn a State Agency Decision Under the Administrative Review Act. Adrian Hofmeyr, Partner Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Similar documents
OVERTURNING AGENCY DECISIONS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

Be sure to look up definitions present at the beginning for both sections. RULES OF PROCEDURE IN TRAFFIC CASES AND BOATING CASES

M-11 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner/Appellant,

STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. HENRY R. DARWIN, Director of Environmental Quality, Plaintiff/Appellee,

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Arizona State Tax Court. Cause No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant,

DONDRA CRUSENBERRY, Appellee, and. CHARLES GRANT, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV Filed November 24, 2015

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No.

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Snell & Wilmer. Phoenix, Arizona

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY LC DT 06/06/2014 CLERK OF THE COURT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

TITLE 40. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE, APPLICABILTY, and DEFINITIONS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 3, 2008

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Criminal Statutes of Limitations Arizona

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

City and County of Denver CAREER SERVICE HEARING OFFICE PROCEDURAL GUIDE

ANTHONY-ERIC EMERSON, Plaintiff/Appellant, JEANETTE GARCIA and KAREN L. O'CONNOR, Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Resolution Through the Courts TEI Audits & Appeals Seminar

Kelley v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections, 744 P.2d 3, 154 Ariz. 476 (Ariz., 1987)

Case: , 02/14/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 73-1, Page 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

City and County of Denver CAREER SERVICE HEARING OFFICE PROCEDURAL GUIDE. Published and Distributed by:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

Snell & Wilmer IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. Leslie Feldman, et al.,

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, YARED AMELGA, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV

DANTAN SALDAÑA, Plaintiff/Appellant, No. 2 CA-CV Filed July 21, 2017

Guide for Self-Represented ( Pro Se or Pro Per ) Appellants and Appellees Revised Edition 2017

No. 2 CA-CV Filed September 30, 2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cv WTM-GRS.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,251 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. ADRIAN M. REQUENA, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.

ALABAMA SURFACE MINING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

Testimony of Dana Bradbury, General Counsel Kansas Corporation Commission

DR. KRISHNA M. PINNAMANENI, individually, and as Trustee of THE KRISHNA M. AND BHAVANI K. PINNAMANENI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Plaintiffs/Appellants,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

LIABILITY AND LITIGATION: MANDATE/JUDICIAL REVIEW

The National Board of Review

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Contents - Mandamus I. MANDAMUS ACTIONS IN GENERAL...2. A. Nature of Mandamus...2. B. Purpose of Mandamus...2

IN RE: THOMAS C. No. 1 CA-MH SP

Manage Your Farm s Legal Liability

may institute, without paying a filing fee, a proceeding under this chapter to secure relief.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

ARIZONA STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. STATE: POLITICAL PARTIES NOT PROHIBITED FROM RECEIVING DONATIONS FOR GENERAL EXPENSES

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE June 9, 2009 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY

APPEAL A FORCIBLE DETAINER JUDGMENT

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) ) ) ) )

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, MICHAEL PETRAMALA, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR

Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV Filed December 24, 2014

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 19, 2004 Session

OAL DKT. NO. EDU ( AGENCY DKT. NO /03 V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

Ephrata Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12, Hearing Examiner DRAFT January 28, 2013 Page 1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,923 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JERRY SELLERS, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 8, 2004 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No.

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, DAMON PAUL MACK, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR PR Filed September 22, 2014

GOING IT ALONE. A Step-by-Step Guide to Representing Yourself on Appeal in Indiana

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.

General Counsel's Supplemental Report

AOR DIRECT L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company, Petitioner,

Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist

AGREED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO REPLY BRIEF

COUNSEL JUDGES OPINION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON On-Brief July 14, 2005

ESPINOZA V. SCHULENBURG: ARIZONA ADOPTS THE RESCUE DOCTRINE AND FIREFIGHTER S RULE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE

STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner,

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. PO Box 1911 AFIN Deer Park, TX CONSENT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

JENNA BUCKOSH, A MINOR, ET AL. WESTLAKE CITY SCHOOLS

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. Gregory Pellerin, Petitioner. vs. Superior Court for Nevada County, Respondent,

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, JOHN JOSEPH BERGEN, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR Filed October 24, 2017

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF ARIZONA

JENNIFER NUNEZ f/k/a JENNIFER GORDON, Petitioner,

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

Court of Appeals of Ohio

LINKAGE TO STRATEGIC PLAN, POLICY, STATUTE OR GUIDING PRINCIPLE:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned On Briefs November 24, 2009

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Ch. 491 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 67 ARTICLE V. GENERAL PROCEDURES

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription:

How to Challenge and Overturn a State Agency Decision Under the Administrative Review Act Adrian Hofmeyr, Partner Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Overturning Agency Decisions Challenging State Agency Decisions under the Administrative Review Act Presented by: Adriane Hofmeyr, Partner

THE PROBLEM Businesses in state-regulated industries often face a negative decision or action by their regulating authority. Businesses can challenge in court the denial or suspension of a license or permit, or granting of permit to competitor.

The Solution Administrative Review Act, A.R.S. 12-901 et seq. allows judicial review of administrative decisions. The ARA has its own set of rules - Arizona Rules of Procedure for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions.

Is An Appeal, Not Litigation Applies to an "administrative agency," e.g. ADHS, ADWR, ADEQ, AHCCCS, ADOT, ADES, ADFI, school districts, BOR, ROC, and more. A.R.S. 12-901(1). Excludes decisions of county or city or town, unless by specific statute. Can challenge "administrative decision" = a decision affecting "rights, duties or privileges of persons." A.R.S. 12-901(2.)

Very Fast Deadline Have 35 days from date decision is served on you. A.R.S. 12-904(A). Must file a "Notice of Appeal" in superior court. A.R.S. 12-905. Is jurisdictional, i.e. this defense cannot be waived. A.R.S. 12-902(B); Smith v. Arizona Citizens clean Elections Com'n, 212 Ariz. 404, 29, 132 P.3d 1187 (2006).

Notice Of Appeal A.R.S. 12-904(A); A.R.S. 12-909(A); Rule 4. Identify the final administrative decision sought to be challenged ATTACH IT. A "statement of the issues" GO BIG. A "statement of the findings". Ask for fees. Is much more detailed than a normal Notice of Appeal. Will waive issues not raised herein. Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies: Only if statute says so. For e.g., A.R.S. 41-1092.03(A). Service: Must serve Notice of Appeal on agency AND "all other parties to the proceeding before the agency" (BUT NEED NOT NAME ALL PARTIES). A.R.S. 12-906. Appellee: Name AGENCY as Appellee. Do NOT need to name other parties (they will intervene.) A.R.S. 12-908. Briefs: Opening, Answering, Reply. Rule 7. Time For Filing Briefs: 45/45/20 days. Rule 6. Standing: i.e. when can you interfere with someone else's license? Must be person appearing before agency or given notice of proceedings before agency. Roer v. Superior Court in and For Coconino County, 417 P.2d 559 (App. 1966).

Not Limited To Record Below Can introduce new exhibits and witnesses. A.R.S. 12-910(A) and (B). Can ask for an evidentiary hearing. A.R.S. 12-910; Rule 10. Not entitled to discovery. Rule 12. May be entitled to a "jury trial." A.R.S. 12-910(C); Rule 11. Can ask for a stay of the decision. A.R.S. 12-911(A)(1); Rule 3. Must ask for "findings of fact." A.R.S. 12-911(C).

Standard Of Review Standard of review is very deferential to the agency The test: The court "shall" affirm the agency action unless the court concludes that the action is not supported by substantial evidence, is contrary to law, is arbitrary and capricious, or is an abuse of discretion. A.R.S. 12-910(E). But, the court is free to reach its own conclusion when the issue involves interpretation of law. Romo v. Kirschner 181 Ariz. 239, 240, 889 P.2d 32 (App. 1995).

Right To Recover Attorneys' Fees A.R.S. 12-348 entitles ("shall") you to fees if you prevail by an adjudication on the merits. This applies to suits under the ARA and special actions. Not exposed to fees. A.R.S. 12-348(A). But statutory cap of $10K on fees. A.R.S. 12-348(E). Can override cap with private attorney general doctrine. Arnold v. ADHS, 160 Ariz. 593, 775 P.2d 521 (1989). A.R.S. 12-2030 (if your suit is to compel a state officer to perform an act imposed by law ).

Public Records Request A.R.S. 39-101 et seq. Always do one - no form required. Agency must provide copies "promptly." A.R.S. 39-121.01(D)(1). If denied (or insufficient or you're blown off), you can "appeal the denial through a special action in superior court." A.R.S. 39-121.02(A). "Litigants have a greater right to access than public generally." Arizona Agency Handbook relating to Public Records, citing Grimm v. Ariz. Bd. Of Pardons and Paroles, 115 Ariz. 260, 269, 564 P.2d 1227, 1235-6 (1977). May get fees and damages.

Failing Which... By Special Action Against actions of county, city or town. Statutory (e.g. A.R.S. 9-462.06, for city or town zoning decision) or discretionary (by petition) (e.g. county zoning decision). Follow Rules of Procedure for Special Actions. No statutory deadline; laches applies (unless statute). Rash v. Town of Mammoth, 233 Ariz. 577, 16, 315 P.3d 1234 (App. 2013). Only three questions, including arbitrary and capricious or abuse of discretion. Rule 3.

Questions? Adriane Hofmeyr Tucson Office (520) 770-8721 adriane.hofmeyr@quarles.com