City seeks legal fees in gun lawsuit case

SANDPOINT — The city filed a motion earlier this month seeking almost $94,000 in legal fees and court costs which arose from its defense of a lawsuit over the Festival at Sandpoint’s firearms ban.

The city had signaled it would be filing the motion after it was granted summary judgment in the case, which brought an abrupt end to Bonner County's lawsuit against the city for allowing organizers of the waterfront concert series, which leases War Memorial Field from the city, to enact its own security protocols. A cross motion by the county and Sheriff Daryl Wheeler for summary judgment in its favor was denied by Judge Lansing Haynes.

As the prevailing party in the case, Lake City Law Group, which handled the case for Sandpoint, said the city was entitled to the repayment of the fees.

"Such costs should be allowed because the claims and arguments propounded by Plaintiffs in this litigation were so exaggerated and farfetched that Defendant had to perform extensive legal research to determine whether there was any merit to such claims and arguments," Lake City Law said in the filing. "The interests of justice would be well served by assessing these costs against Plaintiffs given that the Court found their arguments to be unpersuasive, vague and speculative, and without merit."

Attorneys' fees totaled $92,759 and costs totaled $1,206.55.

Idaho law allows the court to award reasonable attorney and paralegal fees by the prevailing party.

The fees outlined are reasonable and so is the city's request for reimbursement of the money it spent to defend the lawsuit filed by Bonner County.

In the dismissing all claims with prejudice, the court declared that the city was the prevailing party, allowing it to seek those fees. In addition, Lake City Law noted that both parties have acknowledged that an award of attorney fees in the case would be made to the prevailing party.

The county filed suit against the city on grounds that Idaho law forbids the curtailment of Second Amendment rights on public lands. The Festival has been regulating the weapons ban since 2018 in order to meet the contractual obligation of musical artists who perform during the concert series.

The county, on behalf of constituents, filed suit against the city last year and sought declaratory judgment that the city was acting beyond its authority and that the firearms ban violated Idaho law. The county's action also sought to stop the city from enforcing the firearms ban.

Oral arguments were heard in the case in June, although the court questioned whether the issue had become moot because the 2020 iteration of the Festival was postponed because of the novel coronavirus pandemic. The county's standing in a plaintiff in the litigation was also called into question by the city.

Further argument on the narrow issues of standing and mootness were heard on Aug. 25.

Motions for summary judgment are brought when there are no genuine issues of material fact and therefore no need for a trial.

Idaho's Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act holds that such judgments can only be rendered when an actual or justiciable controversy exists.

The county argued that a justiciable controversy existed between Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler and the city. Moreover, the county argued that Wheeler has standing to bring the litigation because he is entrusted with enforcing Idaho law and jailing those who violate it.

"This argument is unpersuasive," Haynes said in the six-page written ruling, noting that Wheeler's duty is exercised with a significant amount of discretion, which can result in a citation, determine that no crime was committed or make an arrest.

"A declaration by this court as to whether a private entity leasing public property can legally or constitutionally bar the possession of firearms at their event does not change any of the plaintiff's options. He retains his full range of discretion, none of which are changed by a decision by this court on ability of the Festival to ban firearms in (War Memorial Field) during its event," Haynes wrote.

Haynes likened the scenario to a search and arrest for possession of contraband and said a sheriff would not need a judicial declaration that the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution were not violated in order to arrest the person.

"Plaintiff's claim of exposure to liability unless this court decides the issue before it is, at best, vague and speculative. It does not confer standing to him," Haynes said in the ruling.

Haynes further held that decisions by the court could lead to demonstrations by Second Amendment supporters, in addition to opponents.

"In actuality, law enforcement should always be equipped and trained for any crowd control eventualities, regardless of the reason. Plaintiff's fears of future harm are without merit and do not confer standing," Haynes wrote.