This past Thursday, the county filed a Motion to Dismiss against Phillip Rousseau, et al., for their second federal lawsuit seeking to stop the development of the Wegmans grocery store in Columbia and the Harris Teeter grocery store in Turf Valley.
“Plaintiffs’ effort to duplicate their meritless claims and to consume the valuable time and resources of the Court and the Defendants is transparent. Plaintiffs are not availing themselves of federal jurisdiction to redress a cognizable claim. Rather, this second federal case demonstrates that they are engaged in a course of vexatious, frivolous litigation designed to harass and intimidate public officials and to simply delay and obstruct any development with which they personally disagree.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Ouch!
ReplyDeleteThis is standard fare, could even be a form letter type response in similar actions.
ReplyDeleteForm letter because these kind of frivolous cases are all too frequent?
ReplyDeleteA form letter would be an appropriate end to the litigation in this case. As usual, the lawyers were the real winners. I think the defendants accomplished part of their objective by delaying construction as long as they did. Looked to me like the demolition for Wegmans is pretty well complete, except for hauling some debris away. Would love to see them push up the opening date a little.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to your "coverage" of the county's filing, will you provide similar "reporting" of the plaintiff's response?
ReplyDeleteI've heard a rumor that another one of their federal lawsuits is going to be heard by the judge in baltimore. I think it's the one related to the county board of elections rejecting more than three quarters of the referendum petition signatures on a technicality.
ReplyDeleteJudge Motz had scheduled a conference call to set a schedule for the case, but he canceled it in a memo posted in the electronic case file. A motion to dismiss had not been ruled on. He will rule on the motion in the near future.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify, in my post above I was refering to the case about the petition drive the legalbeagle mentioned.
ReplyDelete