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

RESPONSE OF CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    The Plaintiffs pending Motion for Partial Summary Judgment requires only a simple and concise response from the City of Fayetteville. Perhaps the best way to sum it up is to recite the precise words of this Court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order - previously filed herein on July 18, 2002 where the Court said:

        "Plaintiff moves for partial judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the, Ordinance is both unconstitutional as applied and unconstitutional on its face. Regardless of whether this Motion is treated as one for judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment, the Court believes that, as with Defendants' Motions, the issues presented can only be resolved by going beyond the pleadings and into matters as to which disputed factual assertions must be resolved. Plaintiffs request for judgment as a matter of law must therefore be denied."

This Court has already denied the same kind of Motion now presented by the Plaintiff. In his Motion, the Plaintiff contends the Fayetteville Sign Ordinance is unconstitutional on its face and that summary judgment should be granted in his favor. Either the Plaintiff has deliberately ignored the previous ruling of the Court or inadvertently overlooked it or simply didn't understand it. It really doesn't matter what the motives of the Plaintiff are or why he chose to file this Motion because the consequences are the same for all concerned. The result is a waste of time and resources for the Court, for the Defendants and, with all due respect, for Mr. La Tour. 

    Nothing has changed in this case since the Court's original Order of July 18, 2002. No discovery and no further development of the facts has taken place since that time. All that has occurred is a series of unnecessary and repetitious Motions filed by the Plaintiff. 

    Based on the record now before the Court as well as the arguments set forth hereinabove, the City of Fayetteville respectfully requests this Court to deny the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS

BY:________________________

WOODY BASSETT (#77006) 
BASSETT LAW FIRM
P. O. Box 3618
Fayetteville, AR 72702
(479) 521-9996

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

Back to Legal Pleadings

Back to Home