No Standing To Sue The Inn

The Virginia Lawyers Weekly has stories (linked here and here)  on a lawsuit filed by an attorney that involves the Inn at Little Washington and sanctions sought against the attorney

A lawyer whose connection to the picturesque town of Washington consisted mainly of a post office box and his work at the county courthouse lacked standing to challenge the actions of the town council in a deal with the biggest business in town.

That was the judge’s ruling in a dispute that focused attention on connections between the town government and the owner of a tony bistro that brings well-heeled tourists to the tiny Rappahannock County community.

Nestled against the Blue Ridge Mountains, “Little Washington” looks more like a little Williamsburg, without the costumed characters. The top-rated Inn is famous for its fare.

The Inn’s owner and chef, Patrick O’Connell, is also a member of the town council.

Attorney David L. Konick thought the relationship between the town government and the Inn became little too cozy with a recent agreement between the two.

Konick filed suit to challenge what he called a “scheme” in which the Inn would get $20,000 and part of a dead-end street and the Inn would perform a “Town Square Beautification Project.” The town’s plan also involved an alleged “kickback” payment from a nearby church to the Inn, according to a judge’s summary of Konick’s allegations.

Alleging that O’Connell – the councilman and Inn owner – would benefit from the plan, Konick claimed violations of the state Conflict of Interest Act and the Public Procurement Act.

O’Connell had recused himself from the town council vote on the proposal, according to pleadings in the case.

The town, the Inn and O’Connell asked Judge Jeffrey W. Parker to throw out Konick’s claims because he lacked standing. He did not live or pay taxes in the town of Washington, they said.

Parker agreed Konick had no particular interest in town affairs.

“There is nothing contained in the pleading which would bestow any type of justifiable interest in the Plaintiff,” Parker wrote in Konick v. Town of Washington (VLW 015-8-054).

The standing issue was “fatal to all Counts,” Parker said.

Parker went on to assess Konick’s claims, however. He found nothing “other than innuendo” to support a claimed violation of the doctrine of church-state separation.

“Pleadings must set forth facts, not suspicious allegations in quotation marks,” the judge said.

Nevertheless, Parker said he would have allowed claims of technical code violations by the town to proceed if Konick had standing. While the judge gave Konick 21 days to file an amended pleading, he said it was unclear how Konick would be capable of “remedying the defects.”

In a May 21 email, Konick said he had not yet decided whether and how to move forward.

Parker did not address the Inn’s motion for sanctions that claimed Konick’s suit was a vehicle to attack O’Connell as a homosexual and vilify the wealthy outsiders who patroned his business.

“The instant suit is a culmination of years of resentment and hatred expressed by Complainant against Respondents,” wrote Alexandria attorney David G. Fiske on behalf of O’Connell and the Inn. Their April 7 sanctions motion included pages of vitriolic public comments attributed to Konick.

RappNews quoted the Inn’s attorney in characterizing the litigation as a “homophobic vendetta.” (Mike Frisch)