Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02136/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02136-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

ROBERT JOHNSON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-2136

CITY OF FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS;

THE FORT SMITH AIRPORT COMMISSION;

WILLIAM STRANDELL, individually;

JOHN R. DALLAS, individually;

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

WILLIAM HARDING, individually;

JOHN POLINSKY, JR., individually;

R. MARK HORN, individually;

KENNETH PYLE, individually;

GARY W. CAMPBELL, individually;

COLE GOODMAN, individually;

JERRY R. STEWART, individually;

JOSEPH HERMANN, individually;

RICK DERAMUS, individually, DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

NOW on this 6th day of March, 2007, the above referenced

matter comes on for this Court’s consideration of the Motion of

Defendant, Kenneth Pyle, to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint (document #85), the Motion of Defendant, Kenneth Pyle,

to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended and Substituted Complaint

(document #96), the Motion of Defendant, Kenneth Pyle, to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s First Amended and Substituted Complaint (document

#112), and the various responses and replies thereto. Having

reviewed the pleadings of the parties, and all other matters of

relevance before it, the Court, being well and sufficiently

advised, finds and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff, Robert A. Johnson,(hereinafter either

Case 2:05-cv-02136-JLH Document 158 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

“plaintiff” or “Johnson”) filed this action on September 12, 2005

against the following named defendants:

* the City of Fort Smith, Arkansas (“Fort Smith”);

* the Fort Smith Airport Commission (“Airport Commission”);

* William Strandell (“Strandell”);

* John R. Dallas (“Dallas”);

* the United States of America (“U.S.A.”);

* William Harding (“Harding”);

* John Polinsky, Jr. (“Polinsky”);

* R. Mark Horn (“Horn”);

* Kenneth Pyle (“Pyle”);

* Gary W. Campbell (“Campbell”);

* Cole Goodman (“Goodman”);

* Jerry R. Stewart (“Stewart”);

* Joseph Herrmann (“Herrmann”); and 

* Rick Deramus (“Deramus”). 

This matter was originally filed on September 12, 2005; a

First Amended Complaint (document #82) was filed on August 16,

2006; and a First Amended and Substituted Complaint (document

#109) was filed on September 12, 2006. 

Plaintiff’s complaint -- as finally constituted -- contains

seven (7) separate counts: 

* breach of contract;

* intentional interference with contract or business

Case 2:05-cv-02136-JLH Document 158 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

expectancy;

* denial of due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

* denial of due process under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-105;

* defamation;

* civil conspiracy; and 

* age discrimination under Ark. Code Ann. § 21-3-203. 

2. Separate defendant Kenneth Pyle moved to dismiss

(document # 85) the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed

herein on August 16, 2006. Then, Pyle moved to dismiss (document

#96) plaintiff’s First Amended and Substituted Complaint. Pyle

that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state any allegations

upon which relief can be granted. Pyle then filed the Motion of

Defendant, Kenneth Pyle, to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended and

Substituted Complaint (document #112). 

The Court notes that its Order dated September 12, 2006 noted

that the defendants had filed various motions to dismiss

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (document #108). Further, the

Order ruled that to the extent that any such motions were based

upon plaintiff’s non-compliance with Local Rule 5.5(e), the

motions were denied as moot. The defendants were then allowed

time within which to supplement their pending motions to dismiss

with other bases for dismissal. Goodman did just that with the

filing of the Motion of Defendant, Kenneth Pyle, to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s First Amended and Substituted Complaint (document

Case 2:05-cv-02136-JLH Document 158 Filed 03/06/07 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

#112).

3. The Court notes that the issues presented by the instant

motions mirror those set forth in the motions presented by

separate defendants Fort Smith, Harding and Campbell in the Motion

to Dismiss First Amended Complaint by Separate Defendants, The

City of Fort Smith, Arkansas, William Harding and Gary W. Campbell

(document #87) and the Motion to Dismiss of the Separate

Defendants, City of Fort Smith, Arkansas, William Harding and Gary

W. Campbell (document #114). The issues have been thoroughly

analyzed by this Court in its Order (document #156); and,

therefore, for the reasons set forth therein, the Court finds that

Pyle’s motions should be granted in part, and denied in part as

set forth below.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Motion of Defendant, Kenneth

Pyle, to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (document

#85), the Motion of Defendant, Kenneth Pyle, to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s First Amended and Substituted Complaint (document

#96), the Motion of Defendant, Kenneth Pyle, to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s First Amended and Substituted Complaint (document

#112) should be, and they hereby are, granted in part, and denied

in part as follows:

* Count I – the motions to dismiss are granted with

respect to the claims against Pyle; 

Case 2:05-cv-02136-JLH Document 158 Filed 03/06/07 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

* Count II – the motions to dismiss are denied;

* Count III – the motions to dismiss are denied;

* Count IV – the motions to dismiss are denied;

* Count V – the motions to dismiss are denied;

* Count VI – the motions to dismiss are granted with

respect to the individual claims against Pyle; the motions to

dismiss are denied with respect to the official capacity claims

against Pyle; and, 

* Count VII – the motions to dismiss are granted with

respect to the claims against Pyle. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02136-JLH Document 158 Filed 03/06/07 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>