Somo: Court rules in favor of the Town of Fountain Hills

Quoting from the final judgement filed July 9 in Superior Court, “6. On June 4, 2024, this Court entered an Under Advisement Ruling (‘Merits Decision’). The Merits Decision denied all the relief requested in ROT’s Complaint ‘for the reasons set forth in the Defendants’ respective written Closing Statement and Closing Argument.’ The Merits Decision is incorporated here.

“7. For all the reasons in the Merits Decision (and the Defendants’ respective written closing statements), this Court enters final judgment for the Defendants and against Plaintiffs on every claim in the Complaint.”

That is the final statement by Superior Court judge, the Honorable Frank Moskowitz, in the determination against Reclaim Our Town (ROT), favoring the Town of Fountain Hills and Sandor Development about the recent Target development lawsuit.   ROT – the plaintiffs – failed. The defendant – the town – was deemed to have followed state statute regarding referendum petition process.

Let’s be clear, the signatories of the ROT PAC, Larry Meyers and Crystal Cavanaugh, along with Nancy Plencner, all testified under oath about their efforts, but failed in every aspect to convince the court to side with them. Moreover, ROT, as part of the court order, also owes nearly $4,200 in damages (non-attorney fees) for their failure.

As a reminder, it was Councilpersons Friedel, Skillicorn and Toth who had previously attempted to force the town, by virtue of a council resolution, to not defend itself or the town clerk’s actions.  Fortunately, that resolution failed (4-3) as Mayor Dickey and Councilpersons Kalivianakis, McMahon and Grzybowski wisely voted against, and the town moved forward in defense.

The court carefully and sensibly decided who was in the right (the town) and who was in the wrong (ROT).

Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.