Watlington et al v. McCrory Arkansas, City of et al
ORDER denying 26 Motion. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/3/2017. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DAVID WATLINGTON and LINDSEY
HOLLAWAY, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated
CITY OF McCRORY, ARKANSAS and
PAUL HATCH, in his Official Capacity as
the Police Chief of McCrory, Arkansas
1. The City of McCrory and Chief Hatch move again to dismiss
Watlington and Hollaway's case.
They say the case is moot-the
complained-of city ordinance no longer exists. And they say the complaint
fails to state a claim- the ordinance was never enforced against Watlington
and Hollaway, so it didn't deprive them of any constitutional right.
2. Although Watlington and Hollaway' s request for injunctive relief is
moot, they also seek some damages. Ng 25at15-16, 20. This claim saves their
case from mootness.
E.g., Forbes v. Arkansas Educational Television
Communication Network Foundation, 982 F.2d 289, 290 (8th Cir. 1992) (per
curiam); NQ 22 at 2-3.
3. The Court already concluded that Chief Hatch' s warning was the
beginning of enforcement. Ng 22 at 2. Watlington and Hollaway say he told
them they'd have to move after the holidays because of a recently enacted
ordinance. Ng 25 at ifif 34-35. And now they allege particularized facts about
damages caused by this enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional
ordinance. That's enough.
Watlington and Hollaway didn't file a verified complaint or attach
affidavits as directed, Ng 22 at 3, but they did allege they lost $200 in wages
and more than $600 in transportation expenses looking for a new home. Ng 25
at irir 113, 115-18. Watlington and Hollaway have sufficiently stated a claim
for approximately $800 in damages caused by Hatch's beginning to enforce
the ordinance against them. That claim, and only that claim, is what the rest
of the case is about.
Motion, Ng 26, denied.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
3 Av91vs f
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?