Game room owners amass evidence against U.

The owners of the controversial area businesses are asking for a quick decision in a suit against Penn. Depending on which University or city official you ask, a "nuisance" could be "something that bothers people," a property that contributes to a "marked increase in crime" or a "business that attracts undesirable people." And since those officials couldn't give consistent definitions of what constitutes a public nuisance in recent depositions, Penn and the City of Philadelphia had no right to shut down a local video arcade and coin-operated laundry last spring, according to attorneys for the Schoepe family, who own the businesses. Attorneys for the Schoepes have amassed a pile of documents -- including the depositions containing the above quotations -- supporting their argument that city regulators and University officials illegally and unconstitutionally shut down University Pinball and University Laundry at 4006-4008 Spruce Street on April 18. Although a federal court order reopened the establishments one week later, the Schoepes subsequently sued the University and the city in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia over the incident. In court documents filed Monday asking for a partial summary judgment in favor of the Schoepes, their attorneys argue that the "defendants have no admissible evidence which demonstrates that any action or inaction by plaintiffs have caused crime to increase in the area." Such judgments determine wrongdoing, but a jury trial would still be necessary to assess damages. District Court Judge Marvin Katz will set a trial date after November 3. The Schoepes' case against Penn got a boost last month when the city agreed to pay them a $60,000 settlement and admit, in a court document, that the establishments complied with city codes. University General Counsel Shelley Green declined to comment on the latest motion yesterday, which the University must respond to within 10 days. The battle over the Schoepes' establishments -- which are located on the western edge of campus across the street from the Dental School -- has also spread to Philadelphia Common Pleas Court. Last May, the Schoepes sued the University and its chief spokesperson, Ken Wildes, for libel and slander over comments Wildes made in the May 8 issue of the weekly University City Review. The University has filed counter-suits in both cases, accusing the Schoepes' establishments of attracting criminal activity. Schoepe attorney Ronald Shaffer declined to comment on the latest development in the federal lawsuit, saying that the motion and accompanying depositions, memos and reports speak for themselves. To support the Schoepes' claims that their businesses do not attract crime, their attorneys point out that University Police handled 36 incidents at 4006 Spruce Street between February 1996 and February 1997, compared with 254 incidents at the Wawa convenience store at 38th and Spruce streets during the same period. That would make Wawa more of a nuisance than the arcade and laundry, attorneys argue. But since Penn owns Stouffer Triangle -- the building that contains Wawa as well as Stouffer College House and Stouffer Dining Commons -- the University wouldn't want to label its own property a nuisance. Also at issue is whether the University improperly used the District Attorney's Public Nuisance Task Force to shut down the businesses. Task force chief Ed Jaramillo refused to comment, saying he gave a deposition for the case September 10. But the District Attorney's office did provide The Daily Pennsylvanian with a 50-page guide for community members concerned about crackhouses, speakeasies and other establishments that foster public drinking, violence, loud noise and other nuisance-like activities. While the University claims that many of these activities regularly occur in and around the arcade and laundry, Schoepe attorneys argue that there isn't enough evidence to show that the businesses are responsible for such activity. And Assistant District Attorney Carl Anderson said in a deposition that he wasn't "aware of any" facts that would allow the Department of Licenses and Inspections to shut down the Schoepes' businesses without a court hearing. Schoepe attorneys also question whether the University Police Department -- whose 100 officers make it one of the largest private forces in the state -- has the right to patrol private property not belonging to the University. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled last April that a University of Pittsburgh Police officer lacked the authority to arrest an allegedly intoxicated motorist who was driving on a public street. The Schoepes' attorneys contend the ruling also applies to Penn police, confining them to patrolling only on Penn property.