As the litigation surrounding the Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District (HRCID) is well into its second year in the judicial system, one can be excused for losing track of the lawsuits, appeals, stays, judicial reviews, and other legal actions that continue to obstruct progress in the community. These are complex issues and moving through the court system takes time as issues are considered thoroughly and thoughtfully. To provide background for those who are not legal experts or may not have the time to research the issue in granular detail, this article will summarize the past, current, and expected legal action brought by the Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District Taxpayers’ Association to lay out in plain terms how the process has progressed over the past eighteen months. 
The Parties
First, it is helpful to understand who is on either side of the legal proceedings. The petitioners are the parties that file complaints in the form of lawsuit or other legal action. The respondents are the parties defending against the allegations.
The Petitioners
There are three parties filing the lawsuits. First, the Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District Taxpayers’ Association (HRCIDTA). Bill Doyle and Larry Crowley, officers of the HRCIDTA, are also named as petitioners in the legal filings.
The Respondents
The respondents are the Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District Board (HRCID Board), and the lawsuit names the three members of the Board at the time of the filing: Councilor Holli Woodings, (now former) Councilor TJ Thomson, and (now former) Councilor Elaine Clegg. The Harris Family Limited Partnership (HFLP) joined the respondents by filing a motion to intervene, meaning they are listed as an intervenor in the legal proceedings and are treated as co-respondents in the lawsuit.
Timeline
As there have been several lawsuits, motions, briefs, and other legal action, it is easiest to see the whole picture from the start. Below are two timelines, which outline the key dates in each lawsuit filed by the HRCIDTA, including descriptions for context.
ROUND ONE – HRCIDTA Files Claims against HRCID Board and HFLP
October 5th, 2021– The CID Board held a regular meeting and adopted two resolutions, one to approve reimbursements to the developer for projects built and one to issue a bond to finance the payments.
December 3, 2021 – Bill Doyle, Larry Crowley, and the HRCIDTA filed a petition for judicial review alleging claims against the Harris Ranch CID Board and its members related to the October 2021 resolutions. HFLP petitioned to intervene to join the HRCID Board in countering the claims, which was opposed by HRCIDTA (an unusual move that delayed the proceedings and added cost). The judge granted the HFLP motion.
April 19, 2022 – HRCIDTA filed a motion to stay, or pause, actions related to October 5th CID Board meeting until final resolution of the judicial proceeding. This was denied in August of 2022 as the judge found that the HRCIDTA would not suffer harm in the absence of a stay.
October 21, 2022 – After HRCIDTA asked (and ultimately received) permission to exceed briefing timelines and length, an opening brief from HRCIDTA details their legal arguments for bringing the case and the remedies they seek.
November 18, 2022 – Respondent’s and intervenor’s briefs are filed, rebutting the claims brought by the plaintiffs by presenting facts, relevant legal issues, and arguments as to why the claims are not merited.
December 22, 2022 – HRCIDTA files a reply to the respondent’s and intervenor’s briefs.
January 5, 2023 – HRCIDTA files a motion to strike portions of the respondent’s and intervenor’s briefs. This motion was denied by the court.
January 19, 2023 – Both sides delivered oral arguments in Ada County court, presenting their cases directly to the judge.
January 31, 2023 – HRCIDTA files a motion to strike supplemental citations supplied by HFLP after the January 19, 2023 hearing. This motion was denied by the court.
April 25, 2023 – An Ada County judge issued a ruling in favor of the HRCID Board and HFLP, denying all sixteen claims brought by the HRCIDTA, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. Crowley.
Presently, the HRCIDTA has indicated publicly that they plan to appeal the judge’s decision. In an apparent effort to buy more time, on May 12, the HRCIDTA, Crowley, and Doyle asked the judge for a rehearing. Only four days later, on May 16, they then asked for a stay (a pause) on the deadline for the briefing required for the judge to decide if a rehearing is warranted. Currently, it is unclear if HRCIDTA plans to appeal or see through their request for a rehearing.
ROUND TWO – HRCIDTA Files Judicial Review on 2022 HRCIDA Board Decisions
February 21, 2023 – The CID Board held a regular meeting and adopted resolutions to approve reimbursements to the developer for projects in addition to those approved in October 2021.
April 14, 2023 – Separately from the previous timeline, the HRCIDTA, Crowley, and Doyle filed a petition for judicial review that is nearly identical to the case they recently lost.
May 17, 2023 – The HRCIDTA, Crowley, and Doyle filed a motion to stay the lawsuit they brought only a month prior. The request to stay the second lawsuit was argued before an Ada County Judge on June 7, 2023 and is currently under advisement.
Next Steps
Each of the dates above represent another marker on, to date, a long journey to nowhere. As the court proceedings continue, and the HRCIDTA has publicly stated that they plan to appeal the judge’s April ruling, a pattern is emerging. The HRCIDTA has yet to find success with any of their claims–from the primary lawsuits to the minor motions to strike. Yet the steady stream of litigation continues.
