Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / courts / Supreme Court denies review of ruling against political law firm

Supreme Court denies review of ruling against political law firm


A Phoenix law firm known for its political involvement and lawsuits will have to pay nearly $150,000 in legal fees over what a court concluded was unfounded litigation to try to stop what has become the largest medical marijuana cultivation facility in the state.

Without comment, the Arizona Supreme Court has refused to review a ruling of the Court of Appeals which found not only that the penalty was appropriate but also took a slap at the attorneys from Statecraft LLC, the firm that filed the lawsuit against the Town of Snowflake and Copperstate Farms. In essence, that appellate ruling upheld a trial court decision which found the whole challenge to be not only without legal merit but frivolous.

But Kory Langhofer, one of the attorneys at Statecraft involved in the case, insisted that the trial judge “simply got it wrong.”

He warned of implications of the Supreme Court decision to leave the lower court rulings intact, saying it “will inevitably chill thoughtful cases of first impression in Arizona courts.” Langhofer said that is why some nonprofit organizations filed legal briefs urging the Supreme Court to review the issue.

That argument about chilling litigation, however, already was rejected by the Court of Appeals.

“There is no public interest in a frivolous lawsuit, and discouraging groundless litigation is what the legislature intended,” the appellate court concluded. In fact, the appellate judges said the law on legal fees “was enacted with the express purpose of reducing frivolous claims by increasing the threat of sanctions.”

At the heart of the fight is the 2016 decision by the town to issue a special use permit to Copperstate a limited liability company, to grow marijuana in an existing greenhouse the firm had purchased from a company that previously had grown tomatoes and cucumbers.

Several residents represented by Statecraft filed suit, charging violations of open meeting laws, setback requirements and what they called “illegal contract zoning.”

Navajo County Judge Donna Grimsley eventually dismissed the case. More to the point in this case, she said Statecraft had to pay the legal fees of both the town – about $40,000 as computed by an appellate court – and $109,000 to Copperstate in fighting the case.

Statecraft appealed.

But in a unanimous ruling last year – the one the Supreme Court refused this week to review – the Court of Appeals said there was more than enough evidence for Grimsley to conclude that the lawsuit never should have been filed in the first place.

For example, take the claim that the agreement between the town and Copperstate constituted “contract zoning.”

The appellate judges said they agreed with Grimsley that there is no such claim under Arizona law. And even if there were, the facts “clearly demonstrated that the town did not bargain away its zoning powers.”

As to claims by a neighbor that the operation violated setback requirements, the court noted that the resident actually lived in an area zoned for light industrial use and therefore had no basis to make that argument.

And then there’s Grimsley’s conclusion that Statecraft was acting improperly to impede Copperstate from its lawful business.

Part of that was based on an article from the White Mountain Independent about a recall effort launched against council members who had approved the special use permit.

Kenneth Krieger, a retired chiropractor from Peoria, told a reporter he had been recruited to head the recall committee by Langhofer to stop the facility.

That news article became part of the trial court’s conclusion that “Statecraft attorneys knew their actions were not made in good faith.” And the appellate court rejected arguments that the news article should not have been considered in the fight over the legal fees, pointing out that the law firm itself had introduced the article into evidence.

“We do not allow litigants to benefit on appeal from errors they introduced,” the appellate court said.

Statecraft has represented business interests and the Arizona Republican Party in multiple lawsuits, several involving successful efforts to knock initiatives off the ballot. That most recent included a proposal for an increase in income taxes on the most wealthy to fund education and a plan to ban anonymous contributions to political campaigns.

Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Andrew Gould voted to grant review while Vice Chief Justice Robert Brutinel and Justice John Lopez  did not participate in the matter.

Correction: This story erroneously reported that the sanctions were nearly $40,000, when in fact the amount was nearly $150,000. Statecraft was ordered to pay $40,000 in legal fees to the Town of Snowflake, and $109,000 to Copperstate Farms. The original version also erroneously reported that the Supreme Court upheld a Court of Appeals ruling, when in fact the Supreme Court refused to review the appeal from the Court of Appeals. The revised version also includes statements from Kory Langhofer, managing partner of Statecraft.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *




Check Also

abortion, Roe v. Wade, Toma, Petersen, Barto, genetic defects, Alliance Defending Freedom, Mayes, Brnovich

Republicans fighting to defend law prohibiting abortions in genetic defect cases (access required)

The top Republicans in the House and Senate want a judge to let them defend a law that bars abortions in cases of genetic defects, saying newly sworn-in Attorney General Kris Mayes won't do it. And they have more than adequate reason to believe that.