Game room lawsuit delayed as U. appeals court decisions

If University attorneys have their way, a high-profile court battle won't go to trial anytime soon. The long-standing legal fight between the University and the owners of a local video arcade and laundry ran into further complications last month when Penn appealed three rulings unfavorable to its case. The owners of University Pinball and University Laundry at 4006-4008 Spruce Street sued the University and the city last April, asserting that Penn and the Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspections conspired to illegally shut down their businesses April 18. In June, Penn filed a countersuit claiming the establishments attracted crime to the edge of campus. All three appeals stem from an October 22 order by U.S. District Judge Marvin Katz denying the University's motion to award partial or total judgment to Penn without a jury trial. Although the case has been ready for trial since early November, the appeals could cause further delays. Recent articles in The Philadelphia Inquirer and the weekly Philadelphia City Paper have raised the case's already-high profile. The city settled its part of the lawsuit in September by paying $60,000 to the Schoepe family, which owns the businesses. Also, the city admitted in court papers that the establishments did not violate any laws and were not a public nuisance when they were closed. The plaintiffs hoped to use such statements against the University during the trial, but Katz issued an order forbidding attorneys from mentioning the settlement to the yet-to-be-seated jury. In asking Katz to award them judgment, the University claimed in court documents that while the city may have illegally shut down the Schoepes' businesses, the First Amendment right to petition government protected Penn's role in the closure. In effect, University lawyers contend, all Penn did was ask city authorities to investigate the matter. When Katz failed to respond to that argument specifically in his October 22 order denying summary judgment, the University filed another motion asking the court to clarify its position. In his November 17 response, Katz denied that the University's actions in the case were protected "because the University defendants' conduct arguably went beyond the mere 'petitioning' of government." Katz cited the presence of a University police officer at the physical closing of University Pinball as evidence that Penn had overstepped its First Amendment rights. Once that motion was denied, the University asked Katz for permission to appeal the two rulings to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Katz refused on the grounds that "the immediate appeal of the denial of summary judgment would delay rather than materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." In order to appeal a specific order before or during trial, permission must be given by the trial judge. Nevertheless, University attorney Roger Cox appealed the initial motion for summary judgment, the second motion asking Katz to clarify his position and the motion to certify the first two for appeal. The Court of Appeals must first rule on the legality of appealing the orders before ruling on the actual substance of the appeal. The Schoepe family filed a motion December 31 in the appellate court to immediately quash the appeal because the trial judge refused to allow it. The plaintiffs also filed a motion to award judgment to the Schoepes, but Katz ruled against that motion as well. The University has asked Katz to put the case on hold until the appeals court makes its decision. Schoepe attorney Ronald Shaffer could not be reached for comment Friday, and Cox declined to comment on the case.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.