IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
HALO4ASIN
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-0750
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS
Plaintiff
v.
RIDGEWAY PARKS SERVICE
Defendant
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
On July 7th, 2026, Defendant submitted a partial motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second cause of action, which
they refer to as Count II in their motion, pleaded under 7 R. Stat. § 122.101, and the Plaintiff’s request for
monetary relief. Plaintiff submitted a response to Defendant’s motion on July 9th, 2026. It is important to note
that Defendant’s motion raises tentative legal issues, and this Court has taken a precautionary approach in its
ruling to ensure the motion isn’t treated as a summary judgment motion. At points, the Court reserves judgment
to maintain the integrity of proceedings.
I. There is no factual dispute.
Plaintiff correctly asserts that in filing a motion to dismiss, the movant accepts a factual
consensus. Factual disputes cannot be alleged within a motion to dismiss as it does not serve as an
appropriate forum to resolve them. Both parties agree that on June 25th, 2026, the Superintendent of the
Ridgeway Parks Service made Plaintiff aware of the basis for denial. Plaintiff confuses issues of fact and
issues of law within their response to Defendant’s motion. Disagreement between sufficiency of notice
and the point at which notice should be served are purely legal issues. The dispute concerns whether the
time at which the Superintendent served notice was sufficient, or whether it should have been given at
an earlier date. This is a purely legal issue.
The Plaintiff’s submission that the dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant as to whether the
Superintendent specified the reason for denial is factual is also misplaced. On a purely factual basis, the
reason for denial was stated; both parties agree that Plaintiff was made aware that his denial was due to
two alleged strikes Plaintiff had obtained in the Ridgeway County Fire Department. The dispute is
whether this reason is sufficient, as it does not explicitly state the statutory basis for denial under 4 R.
Stat. § 122.402 and is, according to Plaintiff, ambiguous. This is a purely legal issue.
II. Defendant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their interpretation of 4 R.
Stat. § 122.404
“This Court normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms
at the time of its enactment.” Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., Georgia, 590 U.S. 644, 654 (2020). The role of
the judiciary in interpreting legislation is a tentative but necessary duty. Determining the legislature’s
intention in passing statute is seldom easy; therefore, wherever possible, a literal interpretation of the
statute should be preferred. This maximises the likelihood that the judiciary’s interpretation will align
with the legislature’s intention.
4 R. Stat. § 122.404 requires that “[w]here an appointing authority denies an individual on the
basis that their background investigation has yielded a negative result, it shall notify the applicant and
specify the reasoning for the negative result.” 122.404(a) allows for this duty to be fulfilled by listing the
reasoning on a public database. The appointing authority has total control over the point of denial; they
choose the moment. Defendant submits that the Ridgeway Park Service had not chosen their moment by
June 25th, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s background check being displayed as failed on the Ridgeway Park
Service application tracker. The Court finds this argument unconvincing. By providing public notice of
the decision, the Ridgeway Park Service had chosen their moment. In the absence of other evidence or
case authorities, this Court finds that the reasoning for the denial must be provided at the moment of
denial, not at a later time or date.
III. The damages issue cannot be resolved at this stage
The Court does not believe sufficient evidence or case authorities have been provided by either
side to decide an issue of this magnitude. Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s request that Plaintiff’s
request for monetary damages be denied without making any interpretation as to the meaning of 7 R.
Stat. § 122.003 or 7 R. Stat. § 122.101.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.
DATED this 11th day of July 2026. SO ORDERED,
EffortlessBrit
Superior Court Judge
Ridgeway Superior Court
