Thomson v. City of Lewiston, 137 Idaho 473

Summary

The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed summary judgment dismissing Brent Thomson’s complaint challenging the City of Lewiston’s urban renewal plan for lack of standing. The court held that Thomson, who alleged only resident and taxpayer status and no particularized injury, lacked traditional standing and that Idaho Code § 50-2027 did not eliminate common-law standing requirements. The court awarded costs on appeal to the City and denied Thomson’s requests for attorney’s fees.

Holdings

1. A motion under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) must be treated as a motion for summary judgment when the court considers matters outside the pleadings.
2. Summary judgment is a proper procedural method for dismissing an action based on lack of standing.
3. A citizen and taxpayer lacks standing to challenge a governmental enactment when the alleged injury is suffered alike by all citizens and taxpayers and the plaintiff alleges no particularized injury.
4. Idaho Code section 50-2027 does not eliminate the requirement that a plaintiff satisfy traditional standing requirements.
5. Thomson was not entitled to attorney fees under either the private-attorney-general doctrine or Idaho Code section 12-117 because the City prevailed on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly converted the City's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment after considering matters outside the pleadings.
2. Whether summary judgment is a proper procedural method for dismissing an action based on lack of standing.
3. Whether Thomson had traditional standing to challenge the City's urban-renewal ordinance as a resident and taxpayer.
4. Whether Idaho Code section 50-2027 eliminates or alters traditional standing requirements for a person in interest challenging an urban-renewal plan.

Disposition

affirmed