IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS CIVIL DIVISION 1 2:1" It PROTECT PAYETTEVILLE, f/k/a REPEAL 119; - PAUL SAGAN, PETER TONNESSEN and PAUL PHANEUP - PLAINTIFFS 3x 31- BET-Z vs. NO. CV 2015?1510-1 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, et a1., DEFENDANTS f. '1 MOTION TO DISMISS COME NOW the Separate Defendants, Washington County, Arkansas, the Honorable Renee the Honorable Max Deitchler, and the Honorable Bill Ackerman in their respective capacities as Election Commissioners for the Washington County Election Commission (hereinafter ?County?), by and through their undersigned attorney, and for their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and Motion for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order, as amended, of the Plaintiffs, state as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs ?led their original Complaint, Motion, Af?davit and associated documents on Monday, August 31, 2015 at 2:38 pm. The Plaintiffs amended or supplemented their Motion on Tuesday, September 1, 2015. 2. The election in this matter commenced with early voting on Tuesday, September 1, 2015 with eligible voters casting their paper ballots or voting by electronic beginning at 8:00 am in the Washington County Clerk?s of?ce. The election concluded on Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 7:30 pm. 3. This action was therefore ?led less than one day before the election began. In fact, in terms of working time, the action was ?led 112 minutes before the election started. 4. As alleged in the Complaint, the Fayetteville City Council passed the ordinance in controversy in this matter and referred it to the People of Fayetteville on June 16, 2015. Two and a half months passed between the City Council meeting and the filing of this action. 5. This Court previously and correctly denied the Plaintiffs? Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders on the grounds that the same were moot as untimely. 6. With the prayers for Temporary Restraining Orders disposed of, the only remaining prayers against the County are in the nature of injunctions or, more properly, mandamus. See the Plaintiffs? Complaint, Prayer for Relief, B., F. and G. 7. The Plaintiffs have asked this Court, in their Prayer for Relief, 1] G., to essentially outlaw the use of the word ?uniform? in all future ballot titles. The Plaintiffs have alleged no facts that would justify this remedy. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs? request is for the Court to issue an advisory opinion on all future ballot titles. In either case, the Plaintiffs? Complaint fails to state facts upon which relief may be granted, and accordingly, the Court should order it dismissed. 7. The Complaint?s prayers for relief as against the County- whether properly characterized as mandamus or inj unctions- are moot; there is no justiciable controversy between the Plaintiffs and the County, and the Court should dismiss the Complaint of the Plaintiffs against the County pursuant to A.R.C.P 12! g; 6 8. A brief in support of this Motion is ?led simultaneously herewith. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the County prays that the Court order the Complaint dismissed as against the County, and for all other relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Washington County, Arkansas, Hon. Renee Oelshlaeger, Hon. Max Deichtler and Hon. Bill Ackerman, Election Commissioners, Defendants a_ Wash gt Attorney 280 North College, Suite 500 Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 973-8415 (479) 445?6939 (facsimile) szega@co.washington.ar.us CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Steven S. Zega, Attorney at Law, hereby certify that I placed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the United States Mail with adequate ?rst class postage af?xed thereon and addressed to: Travis Story, Esq. Katie L. Freeman, Esq. 438 E. Millsap, Suite 103 Fayetteville, AR 72703 On this day of Septeber, 2015 Steven S.