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

RULE 11 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

COME NOW the Defendants, and each of them, and move this Court pursuant to Rule 11 (c) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to sanction the Plaintiff, John La Tour, and to order monetary and/or non-monetary sanctions so as to effectively deter the Plaintiff from further violations of Rule 11 requirements and additionally move the Court to order the Plaintiff to pay and reimburse all Defendants for their reasonable fees and other expenses incurred as a proximate and direct result of the violation by the Plaintiff of Rule 11. For their reasons in support of this Motion, the Defendants state as follows:

(1) That Plaintiff has filed a Complaint and other written pleadings in this case asserting claim and legal contentions which are not warranted by existing law and entirely unsupported by facts and evidence.                                                                                 
(2) That the - allegations and factual contentions of the Plaintiff in his Complaint and other pleadings filed herein have no evidentiary support, are frivolous in nature and that said Complaint and other pleadings filed by the Plaintiff herein were presented and designed for totally improper purposes and reasons. More specifically, the Complaint was filed for the purpose of trying to harass the individual Defendants in this case, to cause the individual Defendants unnecessary expense and time and also for the purpose of attempting to destroy or in some way impair the sterling professional reputation, credibility and integrity which each of these individual Defendants have earned and demonstrated throughout their respective careers in public service and in the private sector.
 (3) That the Plaintiff failed to make a reasonable inquiry or investigation into the circumstances as to each and every allegation of misconduct he alleges in his Complaint against each of the individual Defendants herein.
(4) That the Plaintiff should be subjected to sanctions, both monetary and non-monetary, as a result of his actions and that the Plaintiff should be ordered to pay the reasonab1e attorney fees and other expenses incurred as a result of his violation of Rule 11.
(5) That the Defendants, and each of them, have served this Motion for Sanctions on the Plaintiff more than 21 days ago with the demand that the Plaintiff withdraw and dismiss his Complaint and all improper, groundless and harassing allegations contained therein.

                   WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendants, and each of them, respectfully move this Court to impose Rule 11 Sanctions on the Plaintiff and for any and all other relief to which they may be entitled pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
                                                                           

 

                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
                                                                                     (501) 521-9996
                                                                                     
                                                           ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
                                                              

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
                

I, Woody Bassett, do swear that I have sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, the foregoing Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions to John La Tour with the request that he dismiss and/or withdraw all improper, groundless and harassing allegations in his Complaint and other pleadings filed herein and that this Motion for Sancti s as been served on John La Tour on this 15th day of February, 2002.

 

__________________________________________________
                                                   WOODY BASSETT

 

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

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
RULE 11 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

                The Plaintiffs Complaint is full of falsehoods, misstatements of fact and law, implausible notions, immaterial assertions and defamatory statements and contentions, all of which were made without proper or reasona1?le inquiry by the Plaintiff and all made by the Plaintiff for hateful and harassing purposes.

                 While there are many Rule II violations by the Plaintiff in his Complaint and other pleadings filed herein, some of the more egregious are as follows:

                                   (1) The Complaint demands not less than ten million dollars in punitive damages against Deputy City Prosecutor Brant Warrick" despite" his governmental and prosecutorial immunity without ever alleging any grounds or facts that could support the award of any punitive damages.  The Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss contains scandalous allegations of perjury as against Mr. Warrick with absolutely no facts or evidence to support such scurrilous allegations. This allegation by the Plaintiff appears to be presented solely to harass, humiliate and embarrass Mr. Warrick and the plaintiff should be sanctioned and ordered to pay fees and costs because of it.

                           (2) The Complaint demands not less than ten million dollars in punitive damages against City Prosecutor Clinton K. Jones despite his governmental and prosecutorial immunity without ever alleging any grounds or facts that could support the award of any punitive damages.

                           (3) The Complaint demands not less than ten million dollars in punitive damages against City Attorney Kit Williams, despite his governmental immunity, with scandalous allegations of tampering with a witness when there are absolutely no facts and no evidence to support such a scurrilous allegation. There are no groqI,1ds or facts alleged by the Plaintiff that could support the award of any punitive damages and for these reasons, the Plaintiff should be sanctioned and ordered to pay attorney fees and costs to Mr. Williams.

                            (4) The Complaint demands not less ten million dollars in punitive damages against the Separate Defendant, Bob Estes, with scandalous allegations of perjury with no facts to support such scurrilous allegations.  There are no grounds or facts alleged that could support the award of any punitive damages against Mr. Estes.  On Page 24 or  Mr. La Tour’s pleading entitled "In Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and In Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment", Mr. La Tour states:
                                                   "Mr. Estes was not functioning as a public official or city
                                                  employee. As such Mr. Estes does not qualify for either
                                                  absolute immunity or qualified immunity. Indeed, giving
                                                  testimony about a conversation he had with an old friend
                                                  is not part of Mr. Estes' official duties on the Planning
                                                  Commission. "

                              Thus, Mr. La Tour admits he knew that "Mr. Estes was not functioning as a public official or city employee". Nor was the alleged conduct "part of Mr. Estes' official duties on the Planning Commission". Hence, the vital requirement of "state action" necessary for a Section 1983 lawsuit is not only missing, but known to be missing by Mr. La Tour when he sued Mr. Estes for ten million dollars. It is reasonable to believe that this portion of Mr. La Tour's case could only have been presented and alleged in an attempt to harass and intimidate a private citizen or for some other improper or inappropriate reason or reasons.

                   (5) The Complaint demands not less than ten million dollars in punitive damages against the City Inspector Mike McKimmey, despite his governmental immunity, without ever alleging any grounds or facts that could support any punitive damages.

                   (6) The Complaint against the City of Fayetteville is based upon its employees' conduct without ever alleging any grounds or facts that could support the award of any punitive damages.

                    (7) The Complaint requests injunctive and declaratory relief on grounds previously raised in State Courts and decided against Mr. La Tour. The Plaintiff has presented false and frivolous arguments in this regard with no factual or legal foundation upon which to base his allegations. Mr. La Tour has presented no non-frivolous argument to counter the fact that all such issues are precluded from being reheard in this Court by virtue of the doctrines of res judicata and issue preclusion.

                    (8) In order to comply with Rule 11, the Defendants are serving notice on the Plaintiff on February 15, 2002 of this Motion for Sanctions and respectfully request and demand the Plaintiff to withdraw the above scandalous and groundless allegations or to withdraw and dismiss his Complaint in its entirety. If the Plaintiff fails to take such corrective action within 21 days, this Motion and Brief will be filed with the Court and sanctions pursued by all Defendants, including a request that the Court order the Plaintiff to pay all reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred by the Defendants in defending these false, scurrilous and improper allegations of the Plaintiff.
           For the reasons set forth hereinabove, the Defendants, and each of them, respectfully request this Court to grant their joint Motion for Sanctions

 

                                                                           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
                                                                                     (501) 521-9996
                                                                                     ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
                                                              

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Woody Bassett, do swear that I have sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, the foregoing Brief in Support of Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions to John La Tour with the request that he dismiss and/or withdraw all improper, groundless and harassing allegations in his Complaint and other pleadings filed herein and that this Brief in Support of Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions has been served on John La Tour on this 15th day of February, 2002.

 

_____________________________________________________
WOODY BASSETT