Mar 302016
 

By Naomi Hatch
United States District Court Judge for the District of Arizona G. Murray Snow granted a motion filed on behalf of the Town of Taylor, 16 defendants who served the town as council members and previous town manager Eric Duthie to dismiss on all charges brought against them by Gary Solomon.
Solomon filed the complaint in federal court Aug. 31, 2015.
Count 1 charges were brought “for the destruction of me and my wife’s company, Solomon Construction, mental anguish and stress for having to pay thousands of dollars to defend myself and my family because the Town of Taylor and the council members named above allowed Hatch Development Company, LLC to develop property as a general contractor without the proper license and no insurance allowed to continue.”
Count 2 accused Hatch Development Company of filing a lawsuit and being awarded a summary judgment against Solomon “without me being allowed to ever step one foot inside the courtroom,” and accused the judge, Robert J. Higgins, of showing “extreme prejudice against me and my family because of the relationship between Judge Higgins and Judge Hatch,” noting that Judge Ralph Hatch is related to Jason Hatch.
Solomon’s complaint said he should have been allowed to be heard in a court of law.
Attorneys for the town filed a motion to dismiss the complaint Sept. 21, 2015. Regarding Count 1, it notes, “Solomon purports to bring this action (and names several statutes). None of these statutes provides a basis for the court to exercise jurisdiction over this complaint,” and goes on to explain each statute and why it is inapplicable to the allegations.
The motion further states, “These conclusory and, frankly, mystifying allegations are mere naked legal conclusions that are insufficient to state a claim.
“The complaint fails to state a claim against the town, as well. There is no vicarious liability.
“Solomon’s complaint also fails to state a claim because it is barred by the statute of limitations,” noting that the complaint was filed “more than six years after the Hunt complaint was dismissed and more than seven years after he became aware of, or should have become aware of, the issues with Hatch Development’s qualifications that underlie his present cause of action.”
Count 2 “fails to state a claim against these defendants because, primarily, it alleges the conduct of non-defendant persons or entities, and in one place it mentions the town, the complaint fails utterly to allege specific facts supporting any claim.”
Count 2 states that the lawsuit was prejudiced against Solomon because of Judge Higgins’ relationship with Judge Hatch, who Solomon alleges is related to Jason Hatch of Hatch Development, and that Navajo County Board of Contractors ignored his complaint about Jason Hatch and Hatch Development.
The motion to dismiss stated, “These allegations state no claim against the town or its officials, whatsoever,” and goes on to note, “Solomon alleges that the town and Hatch Development used him to complete some scheme that is not explained,” calling the complaint an “empty allegation,” which is deficient under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The conclusion of the motion to dismiss states, “Plaintiff Solomon’s complaint should be dismissed because it does not state facts allowing this court to draw a reasonable inference that these defendants were liable for the constitutional violation alleged. And because it is clear that plaintiff’s cause of action, if any, accrued more than two years before the complaint was filed, the complaint should be dismissed because it is untimely.”
Solomon was given until Nov. 3, 2015, to respond to the motion to dismiss. He responded the following day, asking to amend the complaint, parties, jurisdiction and general allegations, and adding Count 3, “negligence per se against all defendants.”
Solomon was “seeking relief from federal jurisdiction,” further stating that he “filed numerous complaints with the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding Navajo County, judges and court systems for illegal court activities, violation of constitution rights, taking of people’s property without due process, which can be proven and shown in open court, which is why this plaintiff is seeking fair and impartial justice from the federal court. No matter what the federal court’s ruling may be, at least I know I will be heard. This plaintiff is only seeking justice.”
The defendants’ reply stated:
* I. “Plaintiff’s ‘response’ is untimely.
* II. “Plaintiff’s ‘response’ fails to address any argument in defendants’ motion to dismiss.
* III. “Plaintiff’s ‘response’ clearly abandons any substantive claim to federal jurisdiction.”
* And concludes, “If the plaintiff believes he has claim against anyone arising from the events that occurred in 2006-2008, plaintiff should file it in state court. Defendants request that the court dismiss this action with prejudice.”
Judge Snow issued an order March 22 addressing each section in paragraphs A through F with the conclusion, “For the foregoing reasons, the court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss.”
The order states, “1. The court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss; 2. The court denies plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint; 3. The court grants defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s amended complaint; 4. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly…”