"It's still being litigated." That was City Council candidate William Gordon's claim at a recent candidate forum regarding his 2007 lawsuit against the City of Richardson. That appears to be technically correct, if by "still being litigated" you mean Gordon and his attorney are still filing motions with the court.
After the jump, the City of Richardson's response of April 8, 2011 to Gordon's latest motion.
"The City of Richardson (the "City") respectfully files this response to Plaintiff William Gordon's Motion to Set Aside Administrative Closing Order and additionally moves the Court, pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 13 and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 10.004, for sanctions against Gordon and his attorney for the filing of this frivolous motion in the form of an award of the City's attorney's fees incurred in responding thereto. The Motion to Set Aside Administrative Closing Order is pointless, frivolous, and filed in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment. There is no factual or legal basis for the motion. Final judgment has been entered and the time for filing any motion for new trial or appeal in this matter has long ago expired without the filing of the same. All issues have been fully and finally adjudicated and there is no factual or legal basis for the Motion to Set Aside the Administrative Closing Order. In support of its Response and Motion for Sanctions, the City would show the following:"
Forty five pages follow, which can be read here.
The City's position is clear: Gordon's motion is "pointless, frivolous, and filed in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment. There is no factual or legal basis for the motion. Final judgment has been entered and the time for filing any motion for new trial or appeal in this matter has long ago expired."
It's up to the judge to deal with Gordon's latest motion. As for me, I can't help thinking I'm watching a scene from a movie.
P.S. William Gordon's lawyer is Richard Tanner. In an appearance before the City Council in July, 2010, Tanner made another charge that the council acted illegally on a different matter. I am not a lawyer, but that charge appeared to be a case of Tanner being unaware of state law. I blogged about it here. Does anyone know if Tanner ever returned to the Council to either apologize or to explain why state law wasn't applicable in this case?
No comments:
Post a Comment