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
DEFENDANTS'
RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On April 18, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a Motion which appears to be a
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. It is difficult to determine if that is
precisely what the Plaintiff intended to file but, for purposes of this
Response, the Defendants will assume those were the intentions of the Plaintiff.
The Court has been subjected to a flurry of filings in this case and the
Defendants do not wish to add to the mountain of paper which the Court will have
to review in order to resolve all issues now pending before it. Accordingly, the
Defendants will not address in detail the points raised in Plaintiffs most
recent Motion as the Defendants believe they have already covered all of this in
their initial Motion to Dismiss or, alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment.
In the previous Motion submitted by the Defendants, they argued that the
Fayetteville Sign Ordinance is constitutional and cited a string of cases in
which the Ordinance has been declared constitutional in all respects.
The Defendants will stand on the content of their Motion previously filed
herein as their response to the Plaintiffs most recent Motion. The Defendants
believe that if the Court grants their pending Motion to Dismiss or Motion for
Summary Judgment then such a ruling will render moot the Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiff on April 18th. In the event the
Defendants' previous Motion is not granted and the Court would like to have
additional argument from the Defendants in response to the Plaintiffs Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, then the Defendants will certainly provide whatever
else the Court might request. However, it seems a pure waste of time, for all
concerned in this case, for the Defendants to comprehensively respond to the
Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The arguments raised therein
have already been addressed by the Defendants in previous filings so there is no
need to unduly burden the Court with more meaningless paper.
Based on the above and foregoing, the Defendants respectfully submit that
a ruling by the Court in favor of the Defendants on their previous Motions will
render moot the pending Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by the
Plaintiff. Alternatively, the Defendants submit that even if Plaintiffs Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment is not rendered moot, it has no merit and should be
denied in all respects.
RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED,
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
BRANT WARRICK
CLINTON K. JONES
KIT WILLIAMS
BOB ESTES
MIKE McKIMMEY
BY:
(Signature
Here)
WOODY
BASSET (#77006)
BASSETT LAW FIRM
P. O. Box 3618
Fayetteville, AR 72702
(501) 521-9996
ATTORNEY
FOR DEFENDANTS
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have served the Plaintiff in the foregoing matter with a copy of this pleading by depositing in the United States mail a copy properly addressed with adequate postage thereon, this 26th day of April, 2002.
___________________________
WOODY
BASSETT