The attorney representing the city and its officers in a federal lawsuit filed by the owner of a former classic car and auto repair shop says they should not be compelled to arbitration when they are not signatories in the part of complaint regarding contract disputes between the now-closed business and several customers.

The latest response in the case of Vivian Pompliano, owner of the former Pomp Boys Motors in Roanoke Rapids, was filed Monday. The city earlier this month sought to dismiss the complaint.

In the lawsuit, which was filed in July, the attorney representing Pompliano, has argued that the harassment by two current officers — Antonio Seward and Jayme Shelburne — and former police Captain Jamie Hardy led to the demise of her business.

The other defendants in the lawsuit are former customers or representatives of former customers who Pompliano charges in the complaint broke contracts regarding storage fees associated with vehicles that were brought into the shop for repairs.

An attorney for two of the defendants in the case has called the complaint by Pompliano a SLAPP lawsuit, one which is designed to intimidate and silence criticism through expensive, baseless legal proceedings. SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuits against public participation.

“The city and its officers take no position on whether the court should stay or dismiss this matter while the customers pursue arbitration against the plaintiffs,” wrote attorney William L. Hill of the Greensboro-based Frazier, Hill & Fury law firm, which is representing the city in the case. “The only request that these responding defendants make is to not be compelled to arbitrate any claims when they are not signatories to any agreements and still possess immunity from the suit.”

Hill wrote the matter arises out of a dispute between the owner of an automobile repair shop and certain customers of the shop. “(The) plaintiffs allege that the city of Roanoke Rapids and the named police officers engaged in a campaign of harassment against the business which ultimately resulted in its closure. The complaint alleges the city and its police officers violated federal statutory law, the North Carolina Constitution, and North Carolina common law.”

Hill argues in the response that there is no allegation concerning any express or implied contract between the city, its officers and plaintiffs. “Likewise, there is no allegation of any express or implied agreement to arbitrate between the city and its officers and anyone. The facts alleged in the complaint are based in tort law rather than contracts.”

Hill wrote that the city and its officers object to arbitration because they possess governmental and qualified immunity. “While the city and its officers are not presently seeking to dismiss this matter on immunity grounds, they have not waived these defenses. Qualified immunity protects governments and their officials when their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right.”

Citing North Carolina case law, Hill wrote, "As long as a public officer lawfully exercises the judgment and discretion with which he is invested by virtue of his office, keeps within the scope of his official authority, and acts without malice or corruption, he is protected from liability."

Hill wrote as the lawsuit currently stands, the city and its officers remain protected by various immunity defenses since there has been no ruling on any defenses that could apply. “If the city and its officers were to be compelled to resolve this matter in arbitration, these immunity defenses could be lost.”