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

[Iudex]

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

 

Case Number: YY-XNNN

Prepared by: Juliette Naviaux

 

APPELLATE BRIEF FOR THE LOS SANTOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT & AN EMERGENCY STAY ORDER

_______________________________________________

 

Argument

 

Background

[1] The Los Santos County Sheriff's Department was party to a judicial review suit from June 16 initiated by the Appellee.  

 

[2] The Appellee alleged that the revocation was illegal as a question of law, but affirmed the question of fact that the incident did take place. The Appellee and the lower court affirmed that Mr. Horvat & Mr. Sloan were carrying their weapons without a conceal carry permit.

 

[3] On or about 2nd of June 2024, the Appellee consisting of Mr. Horvat and Mr. Sloan were openly carrying their firearms at the Market area when they discharged them and were subsequently arrested. Their licenses were revoked pursuant the charge of (9)13. CCW / PF Violation which states:

 

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

 

It further states: 

 

"[...] a misdemeanor punishable [...] as well as a weapon license revocation upon Officer Discretion. This entire charge also falls under Officer Discretion."

 

[4] The appellee claimed that the City Government's strike policy, a non-codified or enacted law trumped actual legislation, the Penal Code.

 

[5] During the case, a ruling was announced that granted the Appellee a total sum of $7,000,000 through rendering a judgement before official arguments were heard, but rather an evidentiary phase. 

 

[6] The Judge rendered a premature judgement during the discovery phase with the following points: 

 

1) The defense (LSSD)'s argument to invalidate the license (PF) if an individual carries a firearm without a CCW is a contradiction to the City Government's policy.

 

The Judge further rendered the following points:

 

2) The ability to revoke a license (PF) solely was enforced by City Government and the decision was solely up to City Government rather than any law enforcement agency. 

 

3) The Plaintiff did violate the licensing rules and regulations, but the correct punishment was solely for City Government to revoke [...] and it was not the purview of law enforcement to dictate the revocation of the license.

 

The Judge then rendered that the firearms license must be reinstated and the aforementioned $7,000,000 must be paid by the LSSD by the 18th of July.

 

[7] The Judge further addressed that he would grant $5,000,000 in loss of earnings without any entered evidence or content.

 

[8] Through this background, we find that there is no issue of question of fact as the Judge found that the Appellee was in violation of openly carrying a firearm without a CCW, including the fact that it violates the law/policies. 

 

[9] We will address in this appeal whether or not the law allows for the revocation of a firearms license by an agency pursuant law and not pursuant non-codified or legislated policy.

 

[10] We will further address the awarding of lost earnings & attorney fees as major points. Lastly, we will address the failure of the Judge to follow procedure in judicial reviews, prematurely rendering a judgment.

 

Question of Law - The Revocation of a PF

 

[11] The question whether or not a PF license can be revoked shall not involve a policy that issued by a government agency, but rather shall be based on law. We simplify our argument and assert that the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department can revoke a PF license based on law.

 

[12] The law that allows the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department to revoke a PF license is enshrined in the State Constitution:

 

The Jurisdictions of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department shall be:

 

 

[...]

 

The power to revoke licenses.

 

[13] We assert that the State Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the State of San Andreas and is trumps any non-codified/law policy issued by an agency.

 

[14] We further assert that the City Government does not have the right to revoke licenses and there is no law that accedes the right to them, but rather LSSD and LSPD are the only agencies with the right to revoke PFs.

 

[15] In addition, we also assert that the Penal Code gives the right to a Peace Officer (LSSD) to revoke a license in conjunction with the charge. 

 

[16] The aforementioned charge states:

 

(9)13. CCW / PF Violation which states:

 

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

 

It further states: 

 

"[...] a misdemeanor punishable [...] as well as a weapon license revocation upon Officer Discretion. This entire charge also falls under Officer Discretion."

 

[17] We find that a weapon license revocation being upon Officer Discretion (LSSD) and it entirely falling upon Officer Discretion, is grounds for a legal revocation and any internal policy shall not trump the Penal Code, a codified law.

 

[18] Therefore, we assert the Judge's reliance on a policy is incorrect from a question of law standpoint as the City Government's policy back then was not a law signed, but rather clearly stated it is a policy. Whereas the Penal Code and State Constitution grant the inherent power to the LSSD to revoke a PF license.

 

[19] The Judge and Appellee agreed that the individual carried a legal registered firearm when they were not authorized to carry it as a conceal-carry weapon and they did not dispute the arrest, but rather the revocation. Therefore, the question of law here is the point of contention.

 

Question of Law - The Issuance of Lost Earnings

 

[20] To address whether or not lost earnings can be awarded, in any capacity is based on if the pursuer of the claim can prove said lost earnings. Lost earnings must be evaluated on several conditions that are mainly: 

 

1) Reviewing the individual's work history, including skills and talents;

2) Involving experts to determine the organization's ability to obtain alleged contracts

3) Using wage comparisons and market values to determine how much they lost.

 

[21] None of the aforementioned actions were taken, the Appellee claimed they lost on a potential contract, but none was entered into evidence, no wage comparison was made, market value research, et cetera.

 

[22] We argue that additionally through Jeffries v. 3520 Broadway Management Co. it was held that a court cannot award for past and future lost earnings when the plaintiff fails to proffer evidence to support the claimed loss of earnings except their testimony.

 

[23] We assert that the Appellee only provided testimony and did not provide evidence except statements that they failed to obtain a contract and provided no paystubs, previous contracts, et cetera.

 

[24] Thereby, we conclude that the awarding of lost earnings fails to satisfy the most basic of standards, where an individual is awarded a sum of money while failing to prove they could have reasonably obtained such amount. We further assert that $5,000,000 is an absurd amount and it is the first-time a Court in the State of San Andreas awards such an amount for any incident. $5,000,000 is an absurd amount and typically is a quarterly/yearly budget for most Departments pursuant State Senate acts.

 

[25] To conclude the Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018 states the following: 

 

[...] the maximum amount any State, local agency, or actor shall be subjected to pay for any particular claim shall be $200,000.

 

[26] Therefore, we come to the conclusion the awarding of $5,000,000 is arbitrary and borders incompetence. 

 

 

Question of Law - Attorney Fees

 

[27] The question of whether or not attorney fees can be awarded shall be based on a legal standard. We assert that States must legislate whether or not it follows the American Rule.

 

[28] We assert that no legislation determining anything different than the American Rule makes it the default standard to follow. 

 

[29] Under the American Rule, attorneys' fees are not [...] recoverable by the prevailing cases in the absences of a statutory authorization (legistation, et cetera), therefore the individual cannot recover attorneys' fees [...] only Congress/Legislative Branch can authorize an exception to the American Rule. Alyeska Pipeline Svc. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240 (1975)

 

[30] We assert no exception to the American Rule was made through legislation. 

 

[31] Pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P.  Rule 54, attorney's fees must be substantiated through specifying the statue that entitles the movant to obtain said fees.

 

[32] We further add that the amount of attorney fees was not documented and the Court failed to determine the validity of the attorney fees and provided it under a blanket approach.

 

Procedural Error

 

[33] In order to determine whether or not the case went through procedural errors, we must first find the intent of a judicial review. Pursuant Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the definition and origins of a judicial review is to determine whether or not a law is unconstitutional, not a situation or action.

 

[34] We argue that a judicial review is reserved pursuant the aforementioned caselaw and its origins is to determine whether or not a law or act is unconstitutional. We assert that an arrest is not a law or act that can be found to be constitutional, therefore a civil action should have been pursued not a judicial review.

 

[35] We move onto the procedural aspect. During the review, the Judge during the entrance of evidence rendered a judgment, prematurely rendering the question of law and not taking into account the procedures of the court which state the case shall undergo the following phases:

 

1) Answer

2) Discovery & Pre-Trial Motions

3) Trial

4) Decision

 

[36] We assert that during the 2nd phase of the case, the Judge rendered a judgment without answering the question of law that was raised initially and without asking for arguments to be given. 

 

Conclusion

[37] For the matter of the revocation of a PF the primary question of law, we assert that the LSSD through the Penal Code and State Constitution are empowered to revoke a PF license, contrary to the lower court's ruling. The Penal Code also authorized the LSSD to revoke a license when a person carries without a CCW, completely refuting the lower court's ruling. We argue a policy does not equate law.

 

[38] For the matter lost earnings, we assert the amount awarded is absurd and fails to meet caselaw in awarding lost earnings. The amount was awarded without evidence and was arbitrarily decided on. The amount is also an amount that exceeds most State Government agencies budgets, reinforcing the fact $5,000,000 is absurd. Additionally, the Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018 only allows $200,000 to be collected.

 

[39] For attorney fees, we assert that the State of San Andreas does not have a law that permits the collection of attorney fees in private suits pursuant the American Rule standard and the aforementioned caselaw. Furthermore, the Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018 allows the maximum of $200,000 to be awarded on government agencies.

 

[40] For the matter of procedural error, we assert that the Judge rendered a judgment during the evidentiary stage and failed to consider or rule on specific points brought up, such as the fact the awarding of attorney fees, the fact the Penal Code empowers the LSSD to revoke licenses.

 

[41] We implore the Court to impose a stay order on the collection of the lower court's judgment, pending this appeal's conclusion.

 

Authorities

1. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

2. Jeffries v. 3520 Broadway Management Co.

3. Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018

4.  Alyeska Pipeline Svc. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240 (1975)

5. The Penal Code (( Old one was in effect ))

6. The San Andreas State Constitution

 

_______________________________________________

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 13th day of July, 2024 by:

 

/s/ JULIETTE NAVIAUX

Juliette Naviaux

Edited July 13, 2024 by Iudex

[Iudex]

 

 

(( I cannot post this in the appeals section, please move it. This is an appeal. ))

[Iudex]

(( @joxii@Levy, Bell & Weinstein@Levy@Suffering ))

[almightybounter]

In the Court of Appeals for the State of San Andreas

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

Appellate Decision

Prepared by: Chief Justice Faircloth

Date: 13.07.2024

---

 

I. Introduction

This appeal arises from a decision by the lower court in favor of the appellees, Mr. Eustace Horvat and Mr. Buck Sloan, concerning the revocation of their firearms licenses and subsequent monetary awards. The Los Santos County Sheriff's Department (LSSD) challenges the lower court's rulings on several grounds, including the authority to revoke a firearms license, the awarding of lost earnings, attorney fees, and procedural errors during the trial.
 

II. Background

The appellees were arrested on June 2, 2024, for openly carrying firearms without a concealed carry permit. Their licenses were revoked under charge (9)13. CCW / PF Violation, which stipulates that carrying a legal, registered firearm without a concealed carry permit is a misdemeanor and can result in license revocation at the officer's discretion. The lower court ruled in favor of the appellees, awarding them $7,000,000 in damages and reinstating their firearms licenses.
 

III. Questions of Law

1. Authority to Revoke PF License

The central issue is whether the LSSD has the authority to revoke a Personal Firearms (PF) license based on codified law rather than city government policy. The relevant statute, (9)13. CCW / PF Violation, clearly states that the revocation of a firearms license falls under officer discretion. Additionally, the State Constitution grants the LSSD the jurisdiction to revoke licenses.

The lower court's reliance on city government policy over the codified law is misplaced. The State Constitution and Penal Code take precedence over non-codified policies. Thus, the LSSD acted within its legal authority to revoke the appellees' licenses.
 

2. Awarding of Lost Earnings

The lower court awarded the appellees $5,000,000 for lost earnings without substantial evidence. Established precedent in Jeffries v. 3520 Broadway Management Co. requires concrete evidence to support claims for lost earnings, which was not provided by the appellees. The awarding of such a substantial sum without adequate evidence is arbitrary and capricious.

Furthermore, the Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018 limits the amount a state or local agency can be subjected to pay for any claim to $200,000. The lower court's award exceeds this statutory limit.
 

3. Awarding of Attorney Fees

Under the American Rule, attorney fees are not recoverable by the prevailing party in the absence of statutory authorization. The appellees failed to provide statutory grounds for the recovery of attorney fees. Therefore, the awarding of attorney fees by the lower court was improper.
 

4. Procedural Error

The lower court rendered a judgment prematurely during the discovery phase, bypassing the trial and arguments phases. This is a clear procedural error. According to Marbury v. Madison, judicial review is meant to determine the constitutionality of laws, not specific actions. The case should have undergone the complete trial process before any judgment was rendered.
 

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the lower court's judgment is reversed on the following grounds:

1. The LSSD has the authority to revoke a PF license based on the State Constitution and Penal Code.
2. The awarding of $5,000,000 for lost earnings is unsupported by evidence and exceeds statutory limits.
3. Attorney fees are not recoverable under the American Rule without statutory authorization.
4. Procedural errors occurred in the handling of the case, warranting a new trial.

The court orders an emergency stay on the collection of the lower court's judgment pending this appeal's conclusion.

The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 

Chief Justice Faircloth
Appellate Court of San Andreas

 

Edited July 13, 2024 by almightybounter