This is a big week for two lawsuits that may decide the future of North Scottsdale.
In November, after heated debate and a narrow Scottsdale City Council approval vote, Axon reached an agreement with the city. As part of its live-work-shop development anchored by a new office, Axon agreed to reduce its plan for 1,900 apartments-condos to 1,200.
Before starting construction near Hayden Road and the Loop 101, Axon must clear two legal hurdles from the political action committee Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions.
While a judge scheduled oral arguments this week on one lawsuit, a key deadline looms within days on the other.
After City Council’s 2024 approval of the original Axon plan, TAAAZE turned in enough signatures of support to allow Scottsdale voters to decide on required rezoning – but the state law knocked out the referendum.
The indefatigable, mystery-funded TAAAZE refused to give up, filing two aggressive lawsuits.
Though Axon made a motion to dismiss the newest of the two, there has not been any scheduling – let alone ruling – on the one claiming the city-Axon agreement “is illegal and invalid under Arizona law and the Scottsdale City Charter.”
In the older of the two lawsuits, at 9:30 a.m. Friday, April 10, lawyers for TAAAZE and attorneys representing the city and state will make oral arguments before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Herrod.
Unless the oral arguments are rescheduled, Herrod will then have 60 days to issue a ruling – so the hot-button issue may be resolved by Scottsdale’s primary election in July.
On Sept. 25, hours before Senate Bill 1543 was to become law, former Scottsdale Councilman – and now current candidate – Bob Littlefield and his TAAAZE filed CV2025-034961.
“The governor of Arizona, when signing the bill in question here, called it the ‘Axon Bill.’ And it is just that: a piece of legislation, specially made for Axon and in violation of the Arizona Constitution,” the lawsuit begins.
Though Axon’s plan is the target, the lawsuit was filed against the state, as the Legislature and Gov. Katie Hobbs approved SB1543. The legislation paves the way for Axon’s office-apartments-hotel plan and nullifies a planned city referendum on the issue.
The city of Scottsdale is listed as a co-defendant.
Representing TAAAZE, Perkins Coie attorneys will tell the judge the suit aims to stop what Littlefield called “Axon’s assault on democracy and the right to challenge local government through the referendum process.”
The TAAAZE-paid attorneys likely will expand on a written argument that the legislation limiting its power over “international campuses” to cities between 200,000 and 500,000 is unfair: “The Axon Bill includes only four or five of Arizona’s 91 cities and towns within its coverage and excludes numerous similarly situated cities, like Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa, that share the same interest and ability to attract international corporate headquarters campuses.”
Attorneys for the state likely will echo arguments made in a motion for the court to toss the lawsuit: “Senate Bill 1543 … exercises the state’s police power over zoning by providing that mid-sized municipalities must allow for hotel and multifamily residential housing uses in areas zoned light industrial, when the land is used for an international company headquarter campus.”
Though acknowledging the Taser-maker worked on the legislation, the state argues calling this “the Axon bill” is misleading, as “it is not illegal for a company to lobby for a bill, nor is it illegal for a specific company to benefit from a bill that it champions.”
And state attorneys will remind the judge the law is narrow: “the land must be used for an ‘international headquarters campus’ employing more than 1,000 full-time employees … and for the multifamily residential units located on campus, at least 30% of the units must be dedicated to individuals who work at the campus or their families, or to police officers, firefighters, teachers, veterans, or health care workers who work within 5 miles of the campus …”
On March 5, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce filed an “amicus brief” opposing the lawsuit, complaining ‘NIMBYism’ (the common acronym for ‘not in my backyard’) has taken root across Arizona and threatens to thwart economic growth and development …”
Ruling in TAAAZE’s favor, the Arizona Chamber warned the court, “would delay and derail a project of statewide importance” and “could open the floodgates and allow similar NIMBY plaintiffs to file lawsuits that delay construction, possibly stop development indefinitely, and certainly damage Arizona’s reputation as a state that welcomes international headquarters, job creating innovation and economic growth.”
TAAAZE 2
On Jan. 26, TAAAZE filed its second Axon-related complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Unlike a previous TAAAZE lawsuit against the city and state, the Jan. 26 lawsuit also names Axon as a defendant.
This one challenges the legality of an Axon-city of Scottsdale memorandum of understanding.
The agreement negates previous Scottsdale City Council action for up to 1,900 apartments, allowing Axon to build 1,200 units, a hotel and new office near Hayden and the 101 in Scottsdale.
Shortly after it was filed, the Progress asked Luis Santaella, the city’s interim attorney, how the city will respond to the new lawsuit. “We have no comment at this time,” a city spokeswoman responded.
The city waived its right to a service of the summons, giving it 60 days from Jan. 26 to respond to the complaint.
On March 24, with the deadline nearing, the city finally spoke – via a filing asking the court to wait for a ruling on the older TAAAZE lawsuit.
The second suit, attorneys for the city argued, “will become moot if the Court finds that S.B. 1543 is unconstitutional,” as TAAAZE is arguing.
“To conserve resources and avoid inconsistent rulings, the city moves … for a stay of all deadlines in this case until the Court rules in No. CV2025-034961.”
Curiously, according to outside attorneys the city is paying, TAAAZE agrees with the freeze plan on the second suit – but “Axon opposes the stay.”
Asked about the rationale, a company spokesman said Axon will not be commenting as the matter is under litigation.
Meanwhile, Judge Herrod may still be reading the muscular, 120-page “motion to dismiss” filed March 19 on behalf of Axon. North Scottsdale attorneys Papetti Samuels Weiss Mckirgan argued the TAAAZE complaint “fails to state a cognizable claim.”
In other words, TAAAZE’s arguments are fatally flawed, according to Axon.
Noting Senate Bill 1543 “authorized Axon to build residential and retail uses … without conducting a public hearing,” Axon states the MOU is “an administrative activity.”
“The MOU is not a zoning ordinance,” Axon argues, “but even if is, SB 1543 preempts traditional zoning requirements.”
According to the March 9 Axon filing, all sides agree TAAAZE’s response to motion for dismissal is due April 9.
TAAAZE is likely to repeat/reframe arguments it has made against the city-Axon agreement.
In the new lawsuit, TAAAZE complains Scottsdale did not consider a housing impact statement prior to entering the MOU and failed to hold a public hearing on the matter.
“The MOU is actually a zoning ordinance,” Bob Littlefield insisted, “which cannot be approved before the city follows certain procedures and affords its residents due process.”
And the complaint claims “Axon received a whole new series of perks in the MOU that were not contained in previous agreements with the city, such as sidestepping traditional water and inspection requirements.”
According to Littlefield, “The MOU took a lousy deal for the city and made it worse. And they made this deal trying to duck public scrutiny.”
The background
The November “memorandum of agreement” (MOU) between Axon and the city passed by a 4-3 City Council vote. Mayor Lisa Borowsky and council members Adam Kwasman, Solange Whitehead and Maryann McAllen voted in favor of the agreement; council members Barry Graham, Jan Dubauskas and Kathy Littlefield (Bob’s wife) voted against the deal.
In November 2024, a year prior to the MOU, Scottsdale City Council approved by a 5-2 vote – with Kathy Littlefield and Barry Graham opposed – a plan for upwards of 1,900 apartments and a hotel on former state land zoned for industrial/commercial uses only.
One month later, Bob Littlefield submitted more than 25,000 signatures asking for a referendum on the Axon zoning issue.
Axon then successfully lobbied at the state legislature, winning the passage of a law bypassing the referendum and allowing the Taser maker to build founder Rick Smith’s dream “international campus.”
The city-Axon agreement that followed allows Axon to “self-certify” its plans, with no city review required.