Residents who owned, leased, and lived on property zoned for agricultural and residential use in county brought action against county, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding project to build electric vehicle manufacturing facilities on state-owned property that was leased by multi-county joint development authority, which leased property to private manufacturer, asserting that project would violate local zoning ordinances.
After being permitted to intervene, state and authority filed motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and county filed separate motion to dismiss. The Superior Court dismissed action, rejecting defendants’ argument that action was barred by Public Lawsuits Act but dismissing on other grounds. Residents, state, and authority appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that:
- Action was “public lawsuit” under Public Lawsuits Act;
- Resident’s prior lawsuit regarding project was “commenced” when it was filed with the court, for purposes of Act’s section prohibiting filing of other lawsuits against public improvement project after public lawsuit had been commenced; and
- Dismissal of current action, not residents’ other nearly identical action that was pending in different county, was warranted under Act.
County residents’ action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding project to build electric vehicle manufacturing facilities on state-owned property that was leased by joint development authority, which leased property to private manufacturer, was “public lawsuit” under Public Lawsuits Act, which limited number of lawsuits that could be brought against public improvement project, though authority, in its bond resolution, stated that project was not public project under Local Government Public Works Construction Law and that statutes requiring contractors on certain public contracts to participate in federal work authorization program did not apply; residents alleged that project would violate local zoning laws, Act applied to broader array of projects than Construction Law, and statutes had no bearing on Act.
In the interest of judicial economy, Court of Appeals would exercise its discretion to decide question of law as to whether county residents’ prior lawsuit was a “public lawsuit” under Public Lawsuits Act, which limited number of lawsuits that could be brought against public improvement project, even though it was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, rather than remanding for trial court to address issue in the first instance, when reviewing dismissal of residents’ action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding project to build electric vehicle manufacturing facilities on state-owned property that was leased by joint development authority, which leased property to private manufacturer, on ground that project would violate local zoning laws; material facts were undisputed.
County residents’ prior lawsuit regarding project to build electric vehicle manufacturing facilities on state-owned property that was leased by joint development authority, which leased property to private manufacturer, was “commenced” when it was filed with the court, for purposes of section of Public Lawsuits Act prohibiting filing of other lawsuits against public improvement project after public lawsuit had been commenced, as supported conclusion that residents’ subsequent lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on ground that project would violate local zoning laws was barred under Act, even though prior lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice prior to any ruling on its merits.
Under Public Lawsuits Act, which limited number of lawsuits that could be brought against public improvement project, dismissal of county residents’ action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding project to build electric vehicle manufacturing facilities on state-owned property that was leased by joint development authority, which leased property to private manufacturer, on ground that project would violate local zoning laws, not residents’ other nearly identical action that was pending in different county, was warranted; other action was not before court, other action was filed earlier, and allowance of one public lawsuit was fulfilled before current action was filed.