Rutland alderman seeks dismissal of lawsuit
Toolbox
By Brent Curtis Staff Writer - Published: July 3, 2009
The legal defense for a Rutland alderman being sued by a city police officer is seeking to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that it lacks legal basis.
The lawsuit, filed last month by Officer Edward Dumas, seeks $10,000 in damages from Alderman Kevin Coleman for remarks the elected official made regarding a board-approved settlement of a case in which Dumas was involved.
Coleman's remarks, which Dumas' suit said amounted to defamation and a breach of due process, found fault with the way city police conducted themselves in some situations.
In an interview with the Rutland Herald last month, Coleman referred specifically to a lawsuit alleging improper use of a Taser by Dumas. That lawsuit was settled for $10,000 with neither Dumas nor the city admitting any wrongdoing.
During the interview, Coleman said the city probably wouldn't have offered to resolve the case if it were "open and shut" and he went on to say city police were "not necessarily doing a professional job arresting people."
Those remarks, while not directed specifically at Dumas, who wasn't named during the interview, still amounted to slander and libel, his attorney John Paul Faignant argued.
But in the motion to dismiss the case filed earlier this week, Rutland attorney Kaveh Shahi, who was hired by the city's insurance provider, argued that Faignant's complaint lacked foundation.
In terms of libel and slander, Shahi said "the claim fails all the requirements" set down by former court decisions for defamation complaints.
In his motion, Shahi argues that even though the city opted to settle out of court to make the Taser case involving Dumas go away, the settlement wasn't a signifier that the lawsuit was brought without merit.
"The allegation that the settlement was made to avoid the cost of trial is in effect an admission that the defense was not 'open and shut,'" Shahi wrote.
Turning to Faignant's complaint about due process violations and bad faith, Shahi said the lack of any adverse action at work — such as termination or discipline — undermined the complaint that Coleman violated a contract between the city and its employee.
Faignant said Thursday afternoon that he would be filing a response to the motion but wasn't worried about a dismissal which he said courts "very seldom" grant.
He also said Shahi's arguments were thin on legal citations and were counterintuitive to arguments the city put forth in the past regarding the settled Taser lawsuit.
"I find it curious that he suggests in the motion that there was some merit to the underlying claim in that case," Faignant said.
brent.curtis@rutlandherald.com
10