IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JOHN S. LATOUR                                                                               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

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND EXPEDITED HEARING

    COMES NOW one of the Defendants herein, the City of Fayetteville, and for its Response to the Plaintiffs Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing the Defendant states and alleges as follows:

    (1) The Plaintiff cannot demonstrate any immediate and irreparable injury or loss which has occurred or which might occur prior to a hearing on the merits in this case. The Plaintiff continues to operate his electronic sign at his place of business and on a daily basis displays his personal, political and religious opinions. Further, the Plaintiff  has a political banner displayed on the front of his residence located near Razorback Stadium and also has a sign advertising a parking business he operates on his residential property. These facts are pointed out simply to rebut the Plaintiffs claim in his Motion that the City of Fayetteville somehow has silenced him or his opinions. There is absolutely no reason for the Court to even entertain a Motion for preliminary injunctive relief and that the remaining issues in this case can be resolved following discovery and at a trial on the merits which is now scheduled the week of May 12, 2003.

    (2) That the Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on January 3,2002 and therefore it has been pending for nine months without the Plaintiff asking for any injunctive relief. Further, at the request of Mr. La Tour, he asked that the trial on the merits in this case be delayed and rescheduled because of his own business considerations. The case had originally been set for trial during the week of March 24, 2003 but following the request of Mr. La Tour, the case was reassigned a trial date for the week of May 12, 2003. It is inconsistent for Mr. La Tour to ask for the trial to be scheduled at a later date and then immediately after the Court grants his request to file a Motion seeking an expedited hearing and preliminary injunctive relief. From the inception of this lawsuit, Mr. La Tour has vigorously exercised his First Amendment rights in and through every means available to him and in no way has his constitutional rights to free speech or freedom of opinion in any way been inhibited or violated by the Fayetteville Sign Ordinance or in any other way by the City of Fayetteville.

    (3) The Plaintiffs Motion requesting the Court to enjoin the City from enforcing its sign ordinance while this case progresses toward a trial on the merits is unreasonable and unnecessary. On July 18, 2002, this Court denied the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as a matter of law. In that Motion, the Plaintiff had argued as a matter of law that the Fayetteville Sign Ordinance is both unconstitutional as applied and unconstitutional on its face. That Plaintiff cannot prove that there is a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits at trial. In view of that, the Court should deny the Motion for preliminary injunctive relief.