THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY COUNTY COURT
TOMSKIPETSKI5
Plaintiff,
v.
LEWISMEDVEDEVA, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AND PERSONAL CAPACITY;
PALMER POLICE DEPARTMENT
Defendant(s).
Date: 6/20/2021
No. CCRC-CV-1308
Before ANTRADZ, County Judge
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Mr. jedistormtrooper0625
Attorney
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Mr. siteowner
District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney
Mr. jaredft45
Assistant District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
BACKGROUND
The defense introduced a motion to dismiss with prejudice at the beginning of the
pre-trial period. In their motion, they presented various arguments, starting with the argument
that the plaintiff violated a clause within the Palmer Police Department’s, hereinafter “the
department”, non-disclosure agreement. The defense’s next argument lies with the fact some of
the relief being sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted. Continuing that the plaintiff also does
not hold the statutory jurisdiction to bring the tort 5 R. Stat. § 401 - Official Misconduct, as it is a
criminal tort. Their next argument states that the plaintiff's allegations and alleged torts within
the civil complaint are insufficient to establish any cause of action, citing 5. R. Stat. § 303.
Finally, the defense presents the argument that the complaint filed by the plaintiff does not meet
the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards. Basing their final argument on the fact that the plaintiff
affirmed a non-disclosure agreement, continuing that the final tort brought against the defendant,
5. R. Stat. § 315, does not apply in this scenario as the administrative action was not arbitrary or
capricious.
Following the introduction of the defense’s motion, the plaintiff filed a document
opposing said motion. The plaintiff argues that the defendant and their counsel do not have
sufficient grounds to request the case be dismissed. They start by claiming the plaintiff did not
violate the non-disclosure agreement, which the plaintiff affirmed, continuing that the plaintiff
has “evidence to refute” the defense’s allegations. Next, the plaintiff disputes the alleged “Lack
of Subject Matter Jurisdiction” claiming that the court still has full jurisdiction and the ability to
issue injunctions. The plaintiff continues that the defendant, LewisMedvedeva, is being sued in
both his personal and official capacities. Overall the plaintiff opposes all efforts to dismiss the
case before trial.
The defense was allowed to oppose the plaintiff’s opposition. They argued that because
the non-disclosure agreement contains an advisory statement, employees cannot disclose radio
communications. Continuing that the tort the plaintiff stated “could still be claimed”, 5 R. Stat. §
214, is inapplicable owing to the fact it was not filed against the defendant. They argued that
even if the defendant was also being sued as an individual, monetary damages would not be
applicable pursuant to 5 R. Stat. § 303. Next, they argued that “Chapter 4: CRIMINAL TORTS”,
lists jail time therefore they must be pursued by a party with prosecuting authority. Noting that
the County Charter grants prosecuting authority to the District Attorney and their Assistants. The
defense continues alleging a breach of contract has occurred twice within this case, even noting
that there have been inconsistencies.
In the plaintiff’s final opposition, they yet again declared opposition to the defense’s
statements. Their first argument is that the format of the defense’s opposition to the plaintiff’s
opposition was not in accordance with the rules of procedure with regards to document
formatting. Second, the plaintiff continues a prior argument that there was “absolutely no radio
traffic” contained within the GIF. The plaintiff argues that even if there was radio traffic in the
GIF there are numerous videos on YouTube posted by unpunished individuals. The arguments
that follow argue that even if monetary damages could not be claimed the plaintiff could still
have their position restored, and that the County Charter does not specifically list “Criminal
Torts” as torts only able to be pursued by a prosecutorial body. The plaintiff continues that they
made a typo that mistakenly indicated they did violate the NDA. Again the plaintiff notes that
they oppose the motion to dismiss and the defense’s opposition.
JUDGMENT
Both sides have made various arguments either in support of or in opposition to the
motion for dismissal with prejudice presented by the defense. Most of those arguments however
should not have occurred in any sort of pre-trial matter. Pre-trial is not the time to dispute the
facts of a case, and as such all arguments that have disputed the facts of the case are thrown out.
There are a few points that still stand, however. First, pursuant to 5 R. Stat. § 303 any
case in which the government is a defendant, a party, or has intervened monetary compensation
is not possible. Second, 5 R. Stat. § 401 can only be alleged by an individual or organization with
prosecutorial authority, which the plaintiff does not possess. Most if not all relief sought after in
this case cannot be granted under the torts listed. The only relief that could be granted in this
matter would be a reinstatement.
The defense made a point to mention that the complaint filed by the plaintiff does not
meet the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards. The court agrees with their conclusion, in this case,
there is no direct claim, instead, there is a collection of various facts.
ORDER
Therefore, the court grants the motion for dismissal with prejudice entered by the
defense.
It is so ordered,
/s/ Antradz
County Judge
