Carl Williams, Petitioner
v.
Aaron Werner and Sachin Dhawan, Respondents
2006 ASM SJ 6
ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Cite As: 2006 SJ Ord. 16
Before Fox, CJ, Hodgson, VCJ, and Thomson, SJ.
On Motion for Summary Dismissal.
NICHOLAS J. FOX, Chief Justice.
1.Carl Williams, an ASM member in the law school, filed two separate complaints, one against Member Aaron Werner and one against Member Sachin Dhawan, both of whom are also in the law school. Since the separate complaints involved the exact same issue but with different parties, the complaints were joined into one. Petitioner alleges that Respondents inappropriately used an email list serve to campaign for their own election to the ASM Student Council. Petitioner alleges that this is a violation of the election rules and therefore warrants the invalidation of Respondents’ candidacy. Respondent Werner filed a Petition for Summary Dismissal with this Court.
2.When considering motions for summary dismissal, the Court assumes that all facts are in favor of Petitioner, and if, even on that assumption, no judgment could be entered for Petitioner, a unanimous panel may dismiss the case.Student Judiciary Rules of Procedure, Rule 12(a). There are several grounds under the Rules of Procedure where a complaint may be dismissed. The Court will address each in turn, and need only find in favor of Respondents on one ground to dismiss.
3.The first ground is that the alleged conduct does not violate the ASM Constitution, ASM Bylaws, or any election rules. Respondent contends that Petitioner did not specify which rule was violated and therefore the complaint is defective as a matter of law. The Court disagrees. As we stated in MCSC v. Otten, Motion for Summary Dismissal, 2004 SJ Ord. 8, a complaint need not “specify chapter and verse” regarding which rule was violated. When examining the election rules, it is clear that Petitioner alleges a violation of the rule “5. Candidates may not use any type of e-mail list serve for campaign purposes without delivering the prior written consent of the list serve moderator to the SEC Chair.”Spring 2006 Election Rules, Rule 5. Clearly there is an issue with a duly-promulgated election rule at stake, and therefore the complaint has merit on this ground and cannot be dismissed.
4.The second ground for dismissal is that the alleged conduct presents no current case or controversy. The complaint at bar was filed on time with the Court, and as noted above, a potential election rule violation may have occurred. Therefore, the complaint does present a current case or controversy and cannot be dismissed on this ground.
5.The third ground is that Petitioner lacks standing to file the case. Petitioner is in fact an ASM member, and is also a write-in candidate for the law school seat in the elections. Petitioner clearly has standing to file against other similarly-situated students and candidates.
6.The final ground for dismissal is that there is no remedy which can be offered to Petitioner. There is still available remedy to Petitioner, which includes disqualifying Respondents from the election.
7.As such, the Court finds that Petitioner’s complaint has merit and cannot be dismissed under the grounds for dismissal found in the Student Judiciary Rules of Procedure.
Wherefore, for the reasons stated above:
IT IS ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Summary Dismissal is DENIED.
By the Student Judiciary,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Nicholas J. Fox, Chief Justice
Amber Hodgson, Vice-Chief Justice
Mark Thomson, Student Justice
Published: 16 April 2006, 2.30PM
Attest: /s/ NJF