ARIZONA SUPREME COURT
STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel.
MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General,
Petitioner,

Case No.: CV–20–0019
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO
INTERVENE

v.
CITY OF PHOENIX, Arizona,
Respondent.
Petitioner, State of Arizona ex rel. Mark Brnovich, Attorney General,
respectfully submits this response to Rowe, et al.’s Motion to Intervene
(“Motion”). (See 1/24/20 Order.)
The five individuals who seek to intervene in this matter describe themselves
as “[r]ide-sharing drivers and passengers who have been providing or using ridesharing services to and from Sky Harbor International Airport [] for several years.”
(Motion to Intervene at 2.) These individuals assert that their intervention is
appropriate under Rule 2 of the Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions.
(Id.) See R. P. Spec. Act. 2(b) (stating, in relevant part, that this Court “may allow
other persons to intervene subject to the provisions of Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure; or may order their joinder as parties; or may allow them to participate
amicus curiae”).

 Here, this Court accepted mandatory jurisdiction of the Attorney General’s
Petition for Special Action under A.R.S. § 41–194.01(B)(2) after the Attorney
General concluded that a City of Phoenix (“City”) Ordinance “[m]ay violate”
article IX, § 25 of the Arizona Constitution. See A.R.S. 41–194.01(B)(2) (when
the Attorney General determines that a city’s ordinance “[m]ay violate a provision
of … the Constitution of Arizona, the attorney general shall file a special action in
supreme court to resolve the issue, and the supreme court shall give the action
precedence over all other cases”). Notably, when this Court established briefing
deadlines for the Attorney General and the City, it also established a deadline of
March 3, 2020, for any interested parties to file an amicus brief. (See 1/22/20
Order.)
The issue before the Court is “[w]hether the City of Phoenix, in violation of
article IX, § 25 of the Arizona Constitution, imposed or increased transactionbased fees on the privilege to engage in a service performed in this State when it
approved an Ordinance that imposes and increases new ‘trip fees’ for commercial
ground transportation services beginning or terminating at the Airport.” (Petition
for Special Action at 9.) This issue is purely legal in nature and does not require
factual development. (See Motion at 15 [stating that Rowe et al. intend to “assert
different and important facts regarding their particular injuries”].) Contrary to the
proposed intervenors’ assertions (see Motion at 11–12), the Attorney General

2

 adequately represents the interests of Rowe et al. because, like the proposed
intervenors (see Motion at 16), the Attorney General alleges that the Ordinance is
unconstitutional.
And because the proposed intervenors will have an opportunity to submit an
amicus brief stating their position and legal arguments, this Court should deny the
Motion to Intervene.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 28th day of January, 2020.
MARK BRNOVICH
Attorney General
Firm State Bar No. 14000
/s/ Brunn W. Roysden III
Brunn W. Roysden III (State Bar No. 28698)
Oramel H. Skinner (State Bar No. 32891)
Linley Wilson (State Bar No. 27040)
Dustin Romney (State Bar No. 034728)
Assistant Attorneys General
2005 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602-542-8958
602-542-4377 (fax)
Beau.Roysden@azag.gov
Linley.Wilson@azag.gov
acl@azag.gov

3