Cited by

P. 15(a)(2), and should be granted “if the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon may be a proper subject of relief.” Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶ 40 (App. 2007) (citation modified).

For this reason, no justiciable controversy exists when the defendant has not actually denied the plaintiff’s asserted interest, Land Department v. O’Toole, or when the defendant lacks the power to deny it, Yes on 200 v. Napolitano

§ 41-193(A)(7); Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶ 34 (App. 2007).

Citing to Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶ 36 (App. 2007), the court wrote that “[a] declaratory judgment action must name as a defendant the entity or official responsible for implementing the law at issue.” (Emphasis added.)

See Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶ 7 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).

See Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶ 7 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).

§ 12–1842, ‘the complaint must set forth sufficient facts to establish that there is a justiciable controversy.’” Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶ 29 (App. 2007) (quoting Planned Parenthood Ctr.

In doing so, “we accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true” and “resolve all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff[].” Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶ 7 (App. 2007) (citations omitted).

Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶ 40 (App. 2007) (leave to amend may be denied on futility ground).

Indeed, Arizona’s governor is tasked with supervising the official conduct of all State officers and “is obligated and empowered to protect the interests of the people and the State by taking care that the laws are faithfully executed.” Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶ 35 (App. 2007) (quoting McFate, 87 Ariz. at 148); see also Ariz. Const. art. 5, § 4; A.R.S.

Indeed, Arizona’s governor is *330 tasked with supervising the official conduct of all State officers and “is obligated and empowered to protect the interests of the people and the State by taking care that the laws are faithfully executed.” Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶ 35 , (quoting McFate, 87 Ariz. at 148 , ); see also Ariz. Const. art. 5, § 4; A.R.S.

Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶ 40

“While leave to amend may be denied when the proposed amendment is futile, it should be granted when the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon may be a proper subject of relief.” Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶ 40 (App. 2007) (citations and punctuation omitted).

§ 12-1831 (“Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.”); Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶ 29

Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶ 19

DISCUSSION ¶ 10 “Mandamus is a remedy used to compel a public officer to perform a duty required by law.” Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶ 9 , see also AR.S.

§ 41 — 193(A)(7); Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, , (attorney general opinions are advisory only).

§ 41- 193(A)(7); Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, (attorney general opinions are advisory only).

See Ariz. State Highway Comm’n v. Superior Court, , (remedy by mandamus is not available to compel highway commission to exercise its discretion in a particular way unless its refusal to do so is clearly arbitrary and capricious); Yes on Proposition 200 v. Napolitano, ¶ 12 , (“When an official has discretion about how to perform a function, mandamus is available to require him to act properly[] only if the official abuses that discretion.” (internal quotation omitted)).

Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶29 , Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc. v. Marks, 17 Ariz.App.

The remedy Soriano seeks is in the nature of a writ of mandamus, a “remedy used to compel a public officer to perform a duty required by law.” Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano

“When an official has discretion about how to perform a function, mandamus is available ‘to require him to act properly,’ only if the official abuses that discretion.” Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, , (quoting Bd.