IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, Defendants. ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Transcription

1 Case 1:10-cv LPS Document 13 Filed 06/16/10 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 198 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JANE DOE, v. Plaintiff, WILMINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITY and FREDERICK S. PURNELL, SR., in his official capacity as executive director of the Wilmington Housing Authority, Defendants. C.A. No LPS ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendants answer Plaintiff s Complaint as follows: Parties 1. Defendants do not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Plaintiff Jane Doe is a resident of The Park View (incorrectly referred to in the Complaint as Parkview Apartments. Denied that The Park View is a public housing facility administered by Wilmington Housing Authority ( WHA. By way of further answer, The Park View is a privately owned apartment building currently being operated by the WHA, pursuant to an agreement with Electra Arms Senior Associates, L.P. 2. Denied, except it is admitted that the WHA was created pursuant to 31 Del. C and that its administrative office is located at 400 N. Walnut Street, Wilmington, Delaware Admitted. Jurisdiction 4. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 1

2 Case 1:10-cv LPS Document 13 Filed 06/16/10 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 199 Background 5. Denied. By way of further answer, if Plaintiff is living at The Park View, she entered into a lease agreement with the Electra Arms Senior Associates, L.P., owners of The Park View. 6. Admitted that WHA s standard Lease and Grievance Procedure for Public Housing Residents Part I contains such a provision. Denied that any residents of The Park View are subject to this lease provision. 7. Admitted that WHA s standard Lease and Grievance Procedure for Public Housing Residents Part I contains such a provision. Denied that any residents of The Park View are subject to this lease provision. 8. Defendants do not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this allegation. 9. Denied. By way of further answer, the lease provisions quoted in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Complaint are not applicable to residents of The Park View. 10. Defendants do not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Plaintiff is a responsible, law-abiding adult who is qualified to own firearms in her home for lawful self-defense and other lawful purposes. Denied that The Park View has any lease provision or rule that would prevent a resident of The Park View from lawful possession of firearms in her residence. 11. Denied. By way of further answer, Defendants received a letter dated February 1, 2010 from Robert Dowlut, General Counsel for the National Rifle Association, stating his belief that the WHA s lease violates the Second Amendment. In addition, neither Plaintiff nor the 2

3 Case 1:10-cv LPS Document 13 Filed 06/16/10 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 200 other residents of The Park View are subject to the WHA s lease provisions quoted in the Complaint. 12. Denied. By way of further answer, none of Defendants actions have deprived any individual of any constitutional right, whether state or federal. Because Defendants have not deprived any individual of any constitutional right, they cannot fail to restore those constitutional rights. 13. Denied. 14. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the 15. Denied. 16. Denied. By way of further answer, many provisions in the Delaware Code limit the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. See 11 Del. C Basis for Injunctive Relief 17. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the 18. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the 19. Denied. 20. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the 21. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the 22. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the 3

4 Case 1:10-cv LPS Document 13 Filed 06/16/10 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 201 COUNT 1 VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 23. Defendants incorporate by reference all of the answers contained in the foregoing 24. Admitted. 25. Admitted. 26. Denied. By way of further answer, the United States Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, U.S., 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2813 n.23 (2008, that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. In the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, No , the Court is expected to address the question of whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment s Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses. The Court heard oral argument in McDonald on March 2, Denied. 28. Denied. 29. Denied. 30. Denied. COUNT 2 VIOLATION OF STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 31. Defendants incorporate by reference all of the answers contained in the foregoing 32. Admitted. 33. Denied. 34. Denied. 4

5 Case 1:10-cv LPS Document 13 Filed 06/16/10 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 202 COUNT 3 PREEMPTION BY STATE LAW 35. Defendants incorporate by reference all of the answers contained in the foregoing 36. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the 37. Admitted. 38. Admitted. 39. Admitted only that the Complaint accurately quotes part of 22 Del. C. 111; otherwise denied. 40. Admitted only that the Complaint accurately quotes part of 9 Del. C. 330(c; otherwise denied. 41. Denied. COUNT 4 EXCEEDING SCOPE OF AUTHORITY 42. Defendants incorporate by reference all of the answers contained in the foregoing 43. Denied. 44. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the 45. Denied. COUNT 5 DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER 10 DEL. C Defendants incorporate by reference all of the answers contained in the foregoing 47. Denied. By way of further answer, see Paragraph 10 above. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to establish that she has standing to pursue this action. 5

6 Case 1:10-cv LPS Document 13 Filed 06/16/10 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the 49. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the claims set forth in the Complaint. 3. Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative pre-litigation remedies. 4. Defendants have not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable defenses, and reserve the right to assert and rely on such other applicable defenses as may later become available or apparent. Defendants further reserve the right to amend their Answer and/or defenses accordingly. 6

7 Case 1:10-cv LPS Document 13 Filed 06/16/10 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 204 WHEREFORE, Defendants Wilmington Housing Authority and Frederick S. Purnell respectfully request that this Court deny Plaintiff s requests for relief, and enter judgment in favor of the Defendants. YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP Dated: June 16, 2010 /s/ Barry M. Willoughby Barry M. Willoughby, Esquire (I.D. No Teresa A. Cheek, Esquire (I.D. No Lauren E. Moak, Esquire (I.D. No The Brandywine Building, 17th Floor 1000 West Street P.O. Box 391 Wilmington, Delaware Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( bwilloughby@ycst.com; tcheek@ycst.com Attorneys for Defendants 7