Eustace Horvat, Buck Sloan v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

[Levy, Bell & Weinstein]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

CIVIL DIVISION

 

Case Name: Eustace Horvat, Buck Sloan v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

Plaintiff Attorney: Napoleon Bell

 

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

_______________________________________________

 

1. Check one box below that best describes this case:

 

Personal Torts

[ ] Assault, battery, or unlawful contact

[ ] False imprisonment

[ ] Intentional infliction of emotional distress

[ ] Deprivation of rights under color of law

 

Negligent Torts

[ ] Breach of duty

[ ] Negligent infliction of emotional distress

[ ] Professional or Medical Negligence

 

Property Torts

[ ] Trespassing or Conversion

[ ] Nuisance

[ ] Theft

[ ] Detainder

 

Dignitary Torts

[ ] Defamation (Slander or Libel)

[ ] Invasion of privacy

[ ] Breach of confidence

[ ] Abuse of process

[ ] Malicious prosecution

[ ] Alienation of affections

 

Business Torts

[ ] Fraud

[ ] Tortious interference

[ ] Conspiracy

[ ] Restraint of trade

[ ] Passing off

 

Contracts

[ ] Breach of Contract

[ ] Collections

 

Judicial Review

[ ] Denial or Revocation of Business License

[X] Denial or Revocation of Firearms License

 

2. List any damages sustained or fees accrued. Include billing rate for attorneys, expert witnesses, etc.

• ~$650,000 in lost earnings

• $1,000,000 in attorney fees

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 16th day of June, 2024 by:

 

/S/ NAME OF PLAINTIFF

Eustace Horvat

Plaintiff

 

/S/ NAME OF PLAINTIFF

Buck Sloan

Plaintiff

 

/S/ NAME OF ATTORNEY
Napoleon Bell

Attorney for Plaintiff

 

Edited June 30, 2024 by Levy, Bell & Weinstein
Damages recalculated

[owen]

''Thank you for coming today. I appreciate that Attorney Napoleon Bell will be representing Mr Eustace Horvat and Mr Buck Sloan for this case. Can you please notify the defendant of this case that being the Los Santos County Sheriff Department and we will reconvene when they have acknowledged.''

Edited June 16, 2024 by joxii

[Iudex]

Your honor, Juliette Naviaux here on behalf of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department. We request 24 hours to gather information on the case to submit our motion.

[owen]

9 hours ago, Iudex said:

Your honor, Juliette Naviaux here on behalf of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department. We request 24 hours to gather information on the case to submit our motion.

 

“Thank you, Juliette. The plaintiff can make their opening statement and I will permit your request, that’s not a problem.”

[Levy, Bell & Weinstein]

((After talking with Eustace, Buck, and joxii, we have decided we would like to postpone this trial until the court system is ready to host trials in-game. Thank you.))

Edited June 18, 2024 by Levy, Bell & Weinstein

[Iudex]

(( I mean, I feel it's better to start with the preliminary phase on the forums and then see if we even reach a trial. If so, we can do that in-game.  @joxii @Levy, Bell & Weinstein ))

[owen]

21 hours ago, Levy, Bell & Weinstein said:

((After talking with Eustace, Buck, and joxii, we have decided we would like to postpone this trial until the court system is ready to host trials in-game. Thank you.))

 

(( As per the PD’s lawsuit - I can’t provide enough time to supplement an in-depth court case IG for the next 2 weeks, so I’d ask that we stay on the forums for now. 

 

However if this does get to a trial phase, we can most definitely figure something out. For now though we don’t need to pause. 

 

Please continue with the opening statements. ))

 

@Levy, Bell & Weinstein@Iudex

 

[Iudex]

@joxii@Levy, Bell & Weinstein

 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Respondent:  Los Santos County Sheriff's Department.

Comes now the Respondent to respectfully request dismissal of the above-captioned matter.  In support of this request, the Respondent asserts as follows:

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The Los Santos County Sheriff's Department through its Department personnel has revoked the Petitioner's Purchase a Firearm License (PF). During an incident on June 2nd 2024, Mr. Buck Sloan & Eustace Horvat were found to have been at an incident at Market Street outside the Mall. Deputy Sheriff Bradley Murphy & Deputy Sheriff Nicholas Edson occupying Department vehicle 240 William 1 were in the immediate area of patrol by the Mall and responded to a 911 call detailing that a person was shot by two guys in suits, r.e. the Petitioners. Upon their arrival, they saw the Petitioners stood next to a body who had been shot.

 

The Deputies detained the Petitioners above discovering they were open carrying handguns. They further founded out during their investigation that Mr. Eustace Horvat had discharged his firearm at the person who was on the ground. This was pursuant an investigation documented on the arrest report. Eustace was found to have shot the civilian while open carrying his firearm.

 

LICENSE REVOCATION

 

On the matter of License Revocation, we must look no further than the definition of (9)13. CCW / PF Violation; Both individuals were in violation of the following clause under the aforementioned law, 

1. A person who carries concealed a legal, registered firearm that is not authorized as a conceal-carry weapon.

Therefore, the reason to revoke the license was unequivocally correct and pursuant the charge's definition and stipulations, it allows for the revocation of a license under the following pretenses as defined:

 

- Penal Code (9)13 is a misdemeanor punishable [...] as well as weapon license revocation upon Officer Discretion. This entire charge also falls under Officer Discretion. 

 

Wherefore, for the aforementioned we deny the Petitioners ability to claim relief on the basis of restoration for a PF license when it was founded that they violated the the stipulations of the license.

 

Furthermore, the Open Carry act was not enacted until June 10th, 2024, yet the incident took place June 2nd, 2024.

 

ATTORNEY FEES & LOST WAGES

 

The Respondent wholeheartedly refutes the Petitioners' ability to claim attorney fees on the basis of the default American Rule being in effect in the State of San Andreas. Pursuant the American Rule, in the event there is no default for the collection of Attorney Fees, no party may claim restitution or assert any sort of claim r.e. Attorney Fees in a civil suit. Each party is responsible for its own fees of litigation.

 

There is no statue or contract between the Respondent and Petitioners that would obligate the Respondent to pay attorney fees. Therefore, the Respondent refutes the ability to claim such relief.

 

On the matter of lost wages, the Respondent asserts that the Petitioners' claim is inherently flawed due to the fact that lost wages cannot be claimed when a detainment or lawful arrest had taken place. Wherefore, we refute the ability to claim relief pursuant the aforementioned section.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Respondent seeks to have the matter dismissed immediately with prejudice based on the aforementioned factors.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                        ___________________________

                                                                        Juliette Naviaux

State Bar #299

 

 

Edited June 20, 2024 by Iudex

[owen]

Thank you Juliette, I've acknowledged the notice and reveiwed the substantiated evidence. Does the plaintiff have a reply to the facts and findings that the defence has provided? @Levy, Bell & Weinstein

 

I'd like to highlight this specifically from the defence, and I quote ''Furthermore, the Open Carry act was not enacted until June 10th, 2024, yet the incident took place June 2nd, 2024.''

Edited June 20, 2024 by joxii

[Suffering]

Firstly, the defendants retrieved their weapons from safe storage within their vehicle. At the time of the incident, discharging a firearm in public while transporting received a strike. My defendants should have received a strike. Their licenses were revoked. 

 

Furthermore, the Guard Card, was not yet ready to be implemented for. It is unacceptable that people working in high-risk roles to keep this city going should be punished by this government’s failings to put the frameworks in place for them to apply for the licenses they need to complete their work in a safe and secure manner.

 

Now I’m just a simple country boy, but the way I see it, you don’t tell the boy to pick up the bottle on the top shelf then beat him when he can’t reach it.

 

Working people can’t wait for bureaucrats to get their affairs in order. They need to do their work, and as seen by the attack, they need to be armed to be able to do their work safely. 

[owen]

Thank you Napoleon. 

 

I understand your concerns in relation to your first argument, specifically and I quote from your statement ''At the time of the incident, discharging a firearm in public while transporting received a strike. My defendants should have received a strike. Their licenses were revoked.'' in which I will ascertain the nature of the seizure and the Deputy testimony. I will, however, need you to provide evidence of the PF policies (and strike admenments) that aid your case. Please provide the following:

 

1. PF policy that pertains to ''discharging a firearm in public while transporting received a strike'' with any and all possibly punishments listed.

 

2. Rationale as to why the defendants exited their vehicle, removed their firearms from safe storage and walked into the LS Mall? I'll need to know from the point they turned their ignition off within their vehicle to the point of engaging with the male who they fired upon what was going through their mind. It's incredibly important I recieve this as the way I'm reading this incident to the way you are describing it, is very different.

 

To Juliette, 

 

Please can it be made possible that I receive the following evidence from your department, and the Deputies involved:

 

1. Statement from the Deputy at the scene (this can be digitally signed and sent to yourself from the Deputy).

 

This argument appears to be around the defendant(s) concealing their weapons in a public place, pertinent to ''A person who carries concealed a legal, registered firearm that is not authorized as a conceal-carry weapon.'' and I just need to clearly establish wether or not the defendant(s) in question were in fact concealing their firearms in a public place.

 

@Iudex @Suffering

 

 

Edited June 21, 2024 by joxii

[Suffering]

Your honor they did not conceal their firearm nor “walk to the mall”. They were attacked at their vehicle, removed their firearms from safe storage within their vehicle, and defended their lives by their vehicle. At no point was their weapon concealed, and the Sheriff’s Department admitted this. 

We have a letter from the Sheriff’s Department admitting the defendants had committed no crime, and that the arresting officer was culpable, violated arrest policy, and neglected their duty. We are prepared to submit this letter as evidence.

 

((As for the PF violation policies the posts have been removed from the forums as the applications moved to the LSPD website))

Edited June 21, 2024 by Suffering

[owen]

1 hour ago, Suffering said:

Your honor they did not conceal their firearm nor “walk to the mall”. They were attacked at their vehicle, removed their firearms from safe storage within their vehicle, and defended their lives by their vehicle. At no point was their weapon concealed, and the Sheriff’s Department admitted this. 

We have a letter from the Sheriff’s Department admitting the defendants had committed no crime, and that the arresting officer was culpable, violated arrest policy, and neglected their duty. We are prepared to submit this letter as evidence.

 

((As for the PF violation policies the posts have been removed from the forums as the applications moved to the LSPD website))

 

I have no doubt that the Los Santos County Sheriff Department stated the Defendants had not committed a crime, that's not what I'm enquiring about. My enquiry is relating to the allegation of 'concealed carrying' and the violation of the personal firearm license. 

 

If you are saying that the Los Santos County Sheriff Department 'admitted' that at no point did your Defendants conceal carry a firearm, the evidence to support that claim will need to be provided for disclosure.

 

I need the following from yourself:

 

1. Please brief with your Defendant(s) invididually and provide me with their statements of the incident that day, start to finish. 

 

2. Provide me with disclosure evidence of and I quote ''At no point was their weapon concealed, and the Sheriff’s Department admitted this'' to support this claim.

 

My request to the Los Santos County Sheriff Department still stands, specifically:

 

1. ''Statement from the Deputy at the scene (this can be digitally signed and sent to yourself from the Deputy).''

 

I will have no rebuttales from defence nor the plaintiff until the following above have been provided to my clerk.

Edited June 21, 2024 by joxii

[Suffering]

Apologies your honor, force of habit, what I meant to say was that my clients committed no crime, and this is the letter that supports that claim. 
 

Deputy Murphy detained my clients simply for invoking their second amendment rights and defending their lives. As a result, he received disciplinary action. 
 

I believe this evidence alone is enough to quash the defence’s Motion to Dismiss. My clients deserve their time of day.

 

[owen]

On 6/21/2024 at 1:57 PM, Suffering said:

Apologies your honor, force of habit, what I meant to say was that my clients committed no crime, and this is the letter that supports that claim. 
 

Deputy Murphy detained my clients simply for invoking their second amendment rights and defending their lives. As a result, he received disciplinary action. 
 

I believe this evidence alone is enough to quash the defence’s Motion to Dismiss. My clients deserve their time of day.

 

Thank you for submitting that evidence. I'll need this clarified with the defence as I don't see the neccessity for the defence to be here if this has been settled out of court via their own department's compsentation scheme. Can I get some clarification in relation to this evidence disclosed and if it pertains to this incident? @Iudex