@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,
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
@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, 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
