IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
JOHN
S. LA TOUR
PLAINTIFF
VS.
CASE NO.: 02-5001
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS;
BRANT WARRICK, INDIVIDUALLY
AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
DEPUTY CITY PROSECUTOR; CLINTON
K. JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CITY
PROSECUTOR; KIT WILLIAMS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CITY
ATTORNEY; BOB ESTES, INDIVIDUALLY
AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND
MIKE MCKIMMEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
DEFENDANTS
ANSWER
OF DEFENDANTS
COME NOW the Defendants, and each of them, and for their joint Answer to the -
Second Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff, John S. La Tour, they state as
follows:
(1) That they
readopt, reallege and reassert all defenses and legal arguments set forth in all
their pleadings previously filed herein, including those defenses and legal
arguments set forth in their Motion to Dismiss and initial Answer, both of which
were previously filed herein.
(2) That the
allegations and content of Paragraphs 1 through 38 of the Plaintiffs Second
Amended Complaint are identical to the content and allegations in his previous
Amended Complaint and the Defendants, and each of them, readopt, reallege and
reassert all defenses, legal arguments and responses set forth in their previous
Answer filed herein in response to Paragraphs 1 through 38 of the Second Amended
Complaint of the Plaintiff.
(3) Defendants deny each and every allegation contained and
set forth in Paragraph 39 of the Second Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff.
Defendants deny that the Plaintiff has proper standing to assert and pursue such
a broad challenge of the Fayetteville Sign Ordinance.
(4) Defendants generally and specifically deny each and every
material allegation contained and set forth in Paragraph 40 of the Second
Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff.
(5) To the extent that Paragraph 41 of the Second Amended
Complaint of the Plaintiff makes any allegations or constitutes anything other
than a conclusionary statement by the Plaintiff, the Defendants deny the
allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Second Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff.
(6) Defendants state that Paragraph 42 of the Second Amended
Complaint of the Plaintiff does not require a response as it does not contain
factual allegations necessitating a response by the Defendants.
(7) Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the
Second Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff.
(8) Defendants
deny the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Second Amended Complaint of the
Plaintiff.
(9) Defendants state that Paragraph 45 of the Second Amended
Complaint of the Complaint of the Plaintiff does not require a response in that
it does not make factual allegations but merely states erroneous legal
conclusions reached by the Plaintiff.
(10) The Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 46 of
the Second Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff.
(11) Defendants believe that Paragraph 47 of the Second
Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff does not require a response but to the extent
that it does, said allegations are denied.
(12) The Defendants state that Paragraph 48 of the Second
Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff does not require a response as it does not
state facts but merely states erroneous conclusions reached by the Plaintiff
which do not necessitate a response herein.
(13) Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the
Second Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff.
(14) Defendants state that Paragraph 50 of the Second Amended
Complaint of the Plaintiff does not require a response and that it does not
state facts but merely contains an argument by the Plaintiff. Defendants further
state that the content of Paragraph 50 of the Second Amended Complaint of the
Plaintiff is offensive and absurd.
(15) To the extent
that the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Second Amended Complaint of the
Plaintiff require a response, the Defendants deny each and every material
allegation in Paragraph 51 of the Second Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff.
(16) Defendants
deny the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Second Amended Complaint of the
Plaintiff.
(17) Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the
Second Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff.
(18) Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 54,
including subparts a and b, of the Second Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff.
(19) Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the
Second Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff. Defendants further state that the
Fayetteville Sign Ordinance is constitutional in every respect, both as it is
applied and on its face. Defendants further state that the Fayetteville Sign
Ordinance in no way constitutes an illegal prior restraint and in no way
violates the Plaintiffs or any other citizen's rights to freedom of speech,
equal protection under the law or their civil rights.
(20) Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the
Second Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff and state that Plaintiff is not
entitled to any costs of any kind or description nor is Plaintiff entitled to
recover damages of any kind or description.
(21) In response to the allegations in the Prayer For Relief
of the Plaintiff, the Defendants generally and specifically deny each and every
material allegation contained and set forth therein. More specifically, the
Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief of any kind or
description against the City of Fayetteville or any of the individual Defendants
herein. The Defendants further deny that the Plaintiff is entitled to any
declaratory relief of any kind or description and further deny that the City of
Fayetteville or any other Defendant herein has violated any of the
constitutional rights afforded to the Plaintiff. Pleading further, the
Defendants specifically state that the
Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages has already been ruled on by this
Court and that the claim of the Plaintiff for punitive damages has been
dismissed in its entirety. Defendants further state that the claim of the
Plaintiff for punitive damages has been eliminated in every respect and is no
longer an issue in this case. Pleading further, Defendants state the Plaintiff
is not entitled to recover costs of any kind or description nor is the Plaintiff
entitled to any other relief of any kind or description.
Pleading affirmatively, the City of Fayetteville states that
it has the right under the law to regulate private property in a reasonable way
in the interest of public health, comfort, convenience and maintenance of
property values. At no time has the City of Fayetteville or any of the
individual Defendants herein attempted to deny the Plaintiff or any other
individual his or her rights to free speech or Equal Protection of the laws.
Defendants further state that the Fayetteville Sign Ordinance is reasonable and
constitutional in every respect and further state that Plaintiff has been
allowed under the ordinance, to state his political and religious beliefs on his
electronic sign and allowed to change the content of his political and religious
messages every three hours. The Defendants state that whatever regulation has
occurred has been reasonable and fair and in no way has denied the Plaintiff his
constitutional rights.
(22) Defendants,
and each of them, reserve the right to amend their Answer and - to file other
motions herein, all in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
local rules.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendants, and each of them, pray that the
Second Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff be dismissed with prejudice, for their
costs herein incurred and for any and all other relief to which they may be
entitled.
CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
BRANT WARRICK
CLINTON K. JONES
KIT WILLIAMS
BOB ESTES
MIKE McKIMMEY
BY:
WOODY
BASSETT (#77006)
BASSETT LAW FIRM
P. O. Box 3618
Fayetteville, AR 72702
(479) 521-9996
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS