By Naomi Hatch Taylor Councilman Gary Solomon has amended the complaint he filed this summer against the town, and several present and past officials. The defendants responded by asking the court to grant their motion to dismiss the case. The original complaint was filed Aug. 31 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against the Town of Taylor, Arvin Palmer, John Cole, Jane Lee, Eric Duthie, James Gibson, Debbie Tuckfield, Jared Hatch, Brian Birtcher, Jordy Fuentes, Steve Sturgell, John Fay Hatch, Jason Brubaker, David Smith, Carl Cosper, Lynn Dewitt, Robin Palmer and Shawn Palmer. Solomon was seeking $1 million in damages, and explained in the original complaint how those named were responsible. The complaint alleged that Solomon was “entitled to the constitutional and statutory rights enumerated in the Constitution,” and listed two counts. Count 1 alleged that those against whom the complaint was lodged caused “mental anguish and distress” as Solomon had to pay to defend himself, because they allowed Hatch Development Company, LLC, owned by Jason Hatch, to hook up sewer lines, when Hatch did not have insurance, the proper license or approval from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Solomon alleges he was deceived by former town manager Duthie, and was not able to procure documents held by the town until 2014. Solomon also alleges that his firm, “Sol’s Construction Company was hired as a scapegoat to cover the Hatch Development negligence.” Count 2 alleges that Hatch Development Company filed a lawsuit against Solomon, who was not allowed to be inside the courtroom, and that Judge Robert J. Higgins showed “extreme prejudice against me (Solomon)” because of the relationship between Judge Higgins and Judge Ralph Hatch, who is related to Jason Hatch. Solomon also filed complaints with the Board of Contractors against Hatch for the same reasons, but stated in the complaint that they “never sanctioned Hatch Development and instead allowed him to continue without proper license,” and the town “was aware of all these issues and let it continue.” On behalf of those listed in the original complaint, the Doyle Firm, P.C. filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on Sept. 21. The conclusion states, “Plaintiff Solomon’s complaint should be dismissed because it does not state facts allowing this court to draw a reasonable inference that these defendants are liable for the constitutional violation alleged. And because it is clear that plaintiff’s cause of action, if any, occurred more than two years before the complaint was filed; the complaint should be dismissed because it is untimely.” Solomon should have filed a response by Oct. 8. The court extended the response time to Nov. 3. No response was filed by that time, but on Nov. 4, Solomon filed a motion not to dismiss, a request for a continuance and amended the complaint. Solomon amended the complaint, parties, jurisdiction and general allegations in the motion not to dismiss. “This action seeks damages for negligence pro se, neglect, misrepresentation, consumer fraud, unlawful taking, fraudulent schemes against the plaintiff and his business, Sol’s Construction, and emotional distress,” states the amendment. Solomon explained the job, and that he explained to Hatch that he needed ADEQ approval, that Hatch was not licensed and that all defendants were aware of these facts. He further alleged that all defendants mentioned in the amendment “were and are alter egos of defendants of the Town of Taylor having co-mingled assets, having co-mingled business operations, having ignored limited liability company, formality, having formed multiple legal entities to avoid valid debts and obligations, and that it would be unjust to permit defendants and the Town of Taylor to avoid individual liability through the use of a sham entity.” Solomon alleged that the town should have sued Hatch for “breach of contract, no license, no ADEQ approval, no permits,” and they failed to do that, which shows “it was a fraudulent scheme which the Town of Taylor used tax dollars, abused their discretion, abused the citizens of the town of Taylor, and was not and is not adequately capitalized for performance responsibilities, and that the object of these activities was to generate include, funds and gains for the benefit of the representative principals.” He also stated that funds and assets were transferred to “avoid the truth from coming out,” and requested that the town and Navajo County Superior Court should be audited. Solomon alleged that “sewer lines within the industrial park were left without lids or seals, sewer pipes were left unattended,” and when Sol’s Construction was hired the “damages were already done resulting from faulty construction work.” All that was to amend Counts 1 and 2 of his original complaint. Count 3 alleges “negligence per se against all defendants,” because the job did not have the necessary permits or authorizations required by state and federal statutes and regulations. Solomon alleges that he was “damaged by defendants and the Town of Taylor by neglect” due to not have proper authorizations and permits. He is asking for punitive damages “in an amount that will deter other similarly situated as defendants from pursuing their own pecuniary interests having reason to know and consciously disregarding a substantial risk that such conduct might significantly injure others for such and further relief as the court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.” Solomon explains in the amendment that he is seeking relief from a federal court because he has “filed numerous complaints with the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding Navajo County, judges and court system for illegal court activities, violation of constitutional rights, taking of people’s property without due process, which can be proven and shown in open court, which is why this plaintiff is seeking fair and impartial justice from the federal court. No matter what the federal court’s ruling may be, at least I know I will be heard. This plaintiff is only seeking justice.” The defendants’ reply to the plaintiff’s response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss states that the plaintiff did not file a response in a timely manner, even though the court extended the time. It further states, “plaintiff’s ‘response’ fails to address any argument in defendants’ motion to dismiss.” Solomon has not shown how the statutes he cited in Count 1 of his complaint apply to this case, and he “failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the seventeen individuals named as defendants…Plaintiff failed to allege an affirmative link between his conduct and plaintiff’s specific injury.” It further states that the “entire complaint is barred by the applicable two year statute of limitations” and these were not responded to. The plaintiff did not respond to the argument that Count II of the complaint “doesn’t even apply to these defendants and that it certainly states no claim against them. “Since plaintiff has not responded to any of the foregoing arguments, the court should consider plaintiff’s failure to respond a concession that defendants’ motion to dismiss is well-taken. Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be granted and plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice…. “Plaintiff’s ‘response’ clearly abandons any substantive claim to federal jurisdiction…The body of the ‘amended’ complaint alleges state claim causes of action only. At the end of the ‘amended’ complaint, plaintiff pleads for federal court relief because of ‘illegal (state) court activities, violation of constitution rights, (and) taking of people’s property without due process…’ Generalized claims of harm such as these are insufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the court.”