Judge may sanction city for ‘slipshod’ suit against state control

Hear more about the state takeover of the police department on The 314 Podcast.

St. Louis Mayor Cara Spencer indicated Tuesday that she would abandon a lawsuit filed by Aldermanic President Megan Green to block the state takeover of city police—but no one filed paperwork dismissing the case in court by Monday’s deadline. And now U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Schelp appears to be livid.

The federal judge, a Trump appointee, blasted the lawsuit as “slipshod,” called out one of the lawyers who filed it, and suggested the suit was politically motivated. He ordered the city to show by next Wednesday why it should not be sanctioned for filing the suit.

In a footnote, Schelp suggested Green and Mayor Tishaura Jones had rushed the lawsuit in order to file before Spencer took office, noting it was filed on the very last full day of Jones’ term. “Plaintiffs clearly did not think through their filing before signing and submitting it,” he wrote. “Indeed, its typographical errors suggest they put it together hurriedly.” The Post-Dispatch has suggested, without attribution, that Spencer was “irritated” by Green filing the suit without consulting her first. 

Schelp’s order could make any such political machinations a matter for sanctions, potentially including a fine against the attorneys who filed the lawsuit. Yesterday’s blistering order followed one last Wednesday that was also fairly pointed, and identified a clear problem with the city’s suit. Schelp wrote that the suit had no business being filed against the state in federal court because the state has sovereign immunity against such claims and gave the city until Monday to file a response.

Dave Roland, the director of litigation at the Freedom Center of Missouri, says Schelp’s order last week gave the city two clear options: Either respond by Monday explaining why the defect he pointed out wasn’t really a problem, or amend the lawsuit. The city did neither, with Spencer telling the Post-Dispatch she would drop the suit and see if there was a path for a different legal challenge. 

Roland says the city still should have filed a response. “Federal judges are used to having their orders taken seriously and being scrupulously obeyed. They do not take kindly to litigants who appear to disregard or otherwise flout their orders.”

That said, Roland stresses the complicated timing. A new mayor had just been sworn into office. City Counselor Sheena Hamilton had just resigned. There were multiple clients who would need to be consulted (Green, for one, had told the media she intended to continue to pursue the claim). 

Says Roland, “My best guess is that Judge Schelp viewed the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with his order as an intentional slight and he felt the need to address it firmly and directly. And, indeed, today’s order is unusually sharp in tone. The plaintiffs’ failure to provide the ordered explanation gave the judge room to infer all the worst possible explanations—none of which may represent the reality of the plaintiffs’ actions or motivations, but indeed, that is why they really should have availed themselves of the opportunity to defend themselves in accordance with the court’s April 16th Order.  This represents a sort of unforced error on the plaintiffs’ part, but it’s also the kind of slip that happens even to the best of attorneys.”

In his order yesterday, Schelp wrote that the jurisdictional issue was “so glaring that a first-year law student would be able to recognize it.” He also cited an award given to Chuck Hatfield, the prominent Jefferson City attorney representing Green, saying Hatfield was “recognized as a talented litigator in the field of government policy and regulation.” Schelp, however, mentioned the accolades not to praise him, but to bury him.

Hatfield didn’t take the bait in a call with SLM yesterday. He defended the initial suit as “a good faith attempt to address a legal issue.” He agrees they erred in not naming the attorney general, but says he believes they could have fixed that mistake in an amended pleading. 

Instead, he says, “We chose to let it be dismissed without prejudice, because it gave us more time to consider whether to refile in state or federal court.” He says they’ll now be responding to the judge’s order.

In a statement, Green’s spokesman said, “The lawsuit filed by President Green has always been a good faith effort to represent the interests of city residents. It isn’t about any one elected official and from the beginning President Green has asked Mayor Spencer to join her as a plaintiff in challenging the state.”