STATE OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
YASSEN28,
Plaintiff,
Presiding: Hon. koalaMedvedeva
v.
Case No: RSC-AD-619
RIDGEWAY NATIONAL GUARD, et al.
MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant.
Defendant, through undersigned counsel, motions to dismiss the civil complaint filed
against them in this court.
INTRODUCTION
In this matter, Plaintiff alleges that there is a “Unfair Hiring Practice,” in the Ridgeway
National Guard as to how background checks are completed, citing the Administrative
Procedures Act (herein “APA”). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants applied a standard
contrary to the APA that would impediate the privileges of Plaintiff.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - FAILURE TO PROVIDE FOR SYSTEMATIC
VIOLATION OF PROCEDURE - LACK OF JURISDICTION
It is a well recognized right of state governments under common law that “no State can
be sued in her own courts without her consent, and then only in the manner indicated by that
consent.” Hosner v. De Young, 1 Tex. 764, 769 (1847). Every other state in the United States
acknowledges this right. It is further reinforced that “[t]he government shall be immune from all
1
claims except those in this section, and later laws in which liability is explicitly created against
the government.” (1 R. Stat. § 318).
Under subsection 2.8(c)(iii) of the Administrative Procedures Act, it is required that for a
cause of action to be consented to by the State, there must be “systematic violations of statutory
procedure for hiring practices.” The APA provides a clear relief for specific situations which
shall be handled under subsection 2.6, with a clear process that is currently in use. Plaintiff failed
to file a complaint with the Governor’s office, and as such, has no claim under 2.8. Plaintiff
further, in accordance with the APA, was not denied on the background check due to either
alternative account activity or a private inventory and subsequently was not notified as such.
The APA, through its inclusion of notification requirements for alternative accounts and
private inventories and its exclusion of any other reason for notification is clear in intent that
departments are not required to disclose reasons for background check failures, akin to applying
for employment and not being interviewed. It would be extremely foolish to allow any individual
to sue a department for applying and not being notified that they did not receive an interview or a
reason for such. Precedent allowing individuals to sue for denial by any department in any way,
shape or form would be an extremely simpleminded maneuver.
Plaintiff, in their discovery motion, asks the court to cast a net as wide as the sea in the
hopes of catching a single fish. They ask the Court to hop on the metaphorical boat and cast a
line to try and hope for proof of systematic violations of statutory procedures. It would not make
any sense to allow any individual who is denied in a background check to swamp the courts
requesting highly classified documents.
This matter is simply, and as is shown by the Plaintiff’s complaint, a shot in the dark to
attempt to paint an individual who failed a background check for a valid reason as a model
citizen to attempt to force them into employment, risking state security and the sanctity of the
government.
Plaintiff’s attorney has previously stated that under Article I of the Ridgeway State
Constitution, that any individual may petition the courts for legal remedy, which is a correct
statement. Plaintiff’s attorney fails to acknowledge that the law is clear in where there may be a
claim. The burden of proof must fall on the claimant to prove that there is a violation of law
instead of allowing the court to take the boat to the middle of the sea and pray for a fish.
Plaintiff's claim is inadequate and inappropriate to be reviewed by this Court based on the
statutory procedure outlined for grievances of hiring practices under 2.8(c)(iii). The Government
has not given its consent to be sued in this matter, in-fact it has provided for the opposite and
opted to give another manner to seek redress. Counsel's claims of being able to pursue suit under
Article I, Section I of the State Constitution are further inappropriate in this case against the
Government as it is not an explicit opening of permission for the state's immunity to be rescinded
-- as such consent by the Government to be sued must be given through legislation, which does
not support this claim. As such, the first cause of action has no jurisdiction and it must be
dismissed immediately.
SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION - FAILURE TO STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT VIOLATION - LACK OF CLAIM
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants ConstantlyVerbal and Bohbazinga violated 1 R. Stat. §
314 by denying the Plaintiff’s application to the Ridgeway National Guard due to the failure of
the Plaintiff’s background check. Plaintiff fails to identify and present a policy in use with the
Ridgeway National Guard that is contrary to the Administrative Procedures Act’s background
check requirements, simply relying on the net discovery motion filed.
Plaintiff simply alleges that Defendants “applied a standard that is inconsistent with the
law,” but have failed to provide any documentation and relying on the metaphorical fish to back
up their claim. Plaintiff further alleges that there was no remedy to the hiring procedures they
claim are within the law, but fail to provide any amount of policy or internal procedure used, and
again relying on the fish. It is ludicrous to take the net and sweep over the records of any
department after any disgruntled applicant is denied.
Plaintiff continues by alleging that Defendants violated 1 R. Stat. § 316 by stating that the
background check conducted was subjective and claiming Plaintiff meets all background check
requirements. While we are not here to dispute facts regarding the background check, Plaintiff
has further failed to provide any assertions regarding Plaintiff’s denial being based on illegal
policies, going back to the 1 R. Stat. § 314 alleged violation. As such, the second and third cause
of action must be dismissed immediately.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, this action is nothing but an attempt to circumvent procedures already in
place and required by law. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted and
the government has consented. Plaintiff is attempting to put a skid on this Court’s reputation and
ability to litigate claims by filing a claim that is clearly not within the confines of the law.
Plaintiff is attempting to go on a fishing expedition hoping to turn up something and impose the
courts as the new czars of who is and is not a trustworthy employee, which is nothing short of a
desperate attempt to ask this Court to legislate.
Date: August 14, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
/s/Tony_Giordano
Tony Giordano
Bar No: 18102
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
/s/RyanJSyndicate
Ryan J. Syndicate
Bar No: 18106
Assistant Solicitor General
5
