Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Attorneys for the city of Harrisburg asked a federal judge this week to dismiss a gun lawsuit and sanction the plaintiffs for "egregious misconduct" and "fraud."
Joshua Autry, who is representing the city, asked U.S. District Court Judge Yvette Kane to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Joshua Prince, on behalf of Firearm Owners Against Crime and three other plaintiffs, "with prejudice."
Autry wrote in his motion filed Tuesday that the plaintiffs made opposing representations in state and federal court concerning the same lawsuit.
The lawsuit originated in state court, but the city moved it to federal court, where it will remain for now, according to a ruling this week.
In the city's request for transfer, Autry left off one plaintiff's name, which he later said was a typographical error. Prince seized upon the 'typo' and said it meant that particular plaintiff's case remained behind in state court. Prince sought and received a default judgment from the Dauphin County Prothonotary's office.
In state court, Prince allegedly argued that Howard Bullock, whose name was left off the transfer paperwork, had a claim for damages. But the plaintiffs argued in federal court that they had no claim for damages, Autry said, which would support their argument to have the case moved back to state court.
"Plaintiffs mislead either this Court, the state court, or both," Autry wrote in his motion. "To oppose federal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs argue to this Court that they have no claim for damages, whereas, to support default, Bullock argues to the state court that he has a claim for damages. This fraud cannot be tolerated."
Autry asked Kane to dismiss the lawsuit and assign plaintiffs to pay the city's attorney fees, "a number that is continually rising from this duplicitous litigation."
READ: Harrisburg ordered to hand over names, addresses of donors to legal defense fund for gun lawsuits.
Autry alleged that the plaintiffs "have repeatedly abused the litigation process" by pursuing the Bullock case in state court and obtaining a "baseless default" from the Prothonotary before the state court could rule on the city's motion.
Autry also said the plaintiffs' state and federal constitutional claims against the city's gun ordinances are frivolous.
"To date, despite ample opportunity to do so, Plaintiffs cannot cite a single court nationwide to strike down a similar ordinance as violating the right to bear arms," Autry wrote. "Nor do Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish any of the cases cited by Defendants holding that such laws are reasonable and permissible restrictions."
Prince called the motion for sanctions, "absolutely ridiculous."
He said the motion is "merely a delay tactic in having the merits of the issues addressed, as they are well aware that their defense is unsupportable and their ordinances are blatantly illegal."
Autry said the city had suffered as a result of the alleged fraud, "in that Bullock obtained a default in state court, and Defendants have had to litigate this matter in two forums."
Autry asked Kane to send a message that would deter future "misconduct."
"The misstatement by Plaintiffs appears purposeful and in bad faith: to either deceive 1) the state court into upholding default due to a claim for damages, 2) this Court into declining jurisdiction due to the lack of any damages claim, or 3) some combination thereof," Autry wrote. "Any sanction short of dismissal may be 'inherently inadequate to remedy the harm to the public interest in preserving the integrity of the courts, and in deterring future misconduct on the part of other litigants.'"
The lawsuit filed by Prince is one of two lawsuits filed against the city over its gun ordinances.
Gun rights groups have targeted the city's gun ordinances as illegal because of the state's preeminence in regulating firearms. The National Rifle Association has sued Lancaster, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh over their gun ordinances.
Meanwhile, those three cities have challenged Act 192 in Commonwealth Court as unconstitutional.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/05/harrisburg_gun_lawsuit_sanctio.html