Sydnor v. City of Hot Springs, Arkansas et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
DAVID SYNDOR 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:23-cv-06081
CITY OF HOT SPRINGS,
ARKANSAS, et al 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff
has responded to the Motion. 	ECF No. 25. 	Defendants also filed a Reply Brief. 	ECF No. 28.
This matter has been referred to the undersigned, and it is now ripe for consideration.
1. 	Background:
Plaintiff, David Syndor (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, asserting equal
protection and due process claims pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, Article 2 §§ 2 and 3 of the Arkansas, and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. According to Plaintiff
he purchased a 14-seat electric bike with the purpose of providing tours and refreshments
throughout the city of Hot Springs and was seeking to obtain the proper permits to operate the bike
on the Hot Springs city streets. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff asserts he had a property right in obtaining a
transportation permit from the City of Hot Springs and was denied this right and treated differently
than similarly situated persons. Id.
With this Motion, Defendants assert the City of Hot Springs Board of Directors (“Board”)
has the sole authority to approve transportation permit applications, and the Board never
considered Plaintiff’s application or rendered a final administrative decision, and never denied
Plaintiff a transportation permit. ECF No. 18. Because of this, Defendants state Plaintiff did not
suffer an injury-in-fact and does not have standing to file suit against Defendants. 	Further,
Case 6:23-cv-06081-SOH Document 32 Filed 02/04/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Defendants assert there is no case or controversy over which this Court has subject-matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of his claims. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint should be
dismissed, and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Id.
2. 	Applicable Law:
The purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims
or defenses. 	Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–324 (1986). 	Summary judgment is
proper under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “if the movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute about a material fact is genuine when “the evidence is such
that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Substantive law identifies which facts are material. Id.
When the summary judgment movants demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute over
any material fact, the burden shifts to the non-movant to show there is a genuine factual issue for
trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. Mere conclusory allegations are not competent summary judgment
evidence, and thus are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Eason v. Thaler, 73
F.3d 1322, 1325 (5th Cir.1996). A court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-
moving party. BMC Res., Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed.Cir.2007).
3. 	Discussion:
The Constitution of the United States limits this Court's jurisdiction to deciding “cases”
and “controversies” between parties. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559 (1992). For a
dispute to qualify as a justiciable case or controversy under the Constitution, plaintiffs must have
standing to bring their claims. Id. at 560. Standing requires a plaintiff suffer an injury-in-fact that
is traceable to the actions of the defendant and likely to be redressed by the Court's favorable
decision. Id. at 560-561. The Supreme Court has held that injury-in-fact, in turn, is “an invasion
Case 6:23-cv-06081-SOH Document 32 Filed 02/04/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical. Id. at 560 (citations omitted).
Defendants argue Plaintiff lacks standing because he failed to suffer an injury-in-fact.
Defendants’ sole argument is that the Board never rendered a final administrative decision on
Plaintiff’s requested transportation permit and as such Plaintiff has never been denied a permit.
In seeking summary judgment, Defendants argue there are no genuine disputes as to any material
fact. 	As summary judgment evidence, Defendants present the affidavit of Harmony Morriseey
who is the City Clerk of the City of Hot Springs. ECF No. 18-1. Ms. Morrissey’s affidavit sets
forth several events of application process involving Plaintiff and concludes by stating the Board
did not render any decision on Plaintiff’s permit request. Id.
Plaintiff’s position is that Defendants actions prevented him from completing the
application process of obtaining a permit to operate his passenger bike and that said actions
violated his rights to equal protection and due process under the law, and he was injured as a result
of these actions. 	Plaintiff’s affidavit and documents in support set out some of those actions
including: (A) a request of Plaintiff to obtain Arkansas Department of Transportation approval
which was not possible, (B) refusal of the Hot Springs City Clerk to issue Plaintiff an Annual
Vehicle License; (C) a requirement of Plaintiff to renew the application process; (D) creation of
retroactive safety requirements to obtain a Vehicle Examination Form; and (E) a change where
Plaintiff’s bike was dual classified as specialty transit and sightseeing, which is prohibited. ECF
No. 18-1, 26. Plaintiff has alleged damages which include the cost to purchase the bike in question,
along with future loss income. ECF No. 1, 18-1.
A court may not grant summary judgment if the party opposing summary judgment,
by affidavits or otherwise, sets out specific facts that show a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(e)(2). The parties present conflicting affidavits concerning Plaintiff actions in applying for the
Case 6:23-cv-06081-SOH Document 32 Filed 02/04/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
transportation permit. Where different inferences could be drawn from conflicting affidavits and
depositions, summary judgment should be denied. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654,
655 (1962).
Having reviewed the pleadings and the evidence on file, considering the facts in a light
most favorable to the party opposing a motion for summary judgment and giving that party the
benefit of any inferences that logically can be drawn from those facts, the Court finds there are
issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment. These determinations should be made by
a fact finder after benefitting from the ability to weigh the evidence presented by both sides at a
trial.0F
1
4. 	Conclusion:
Based upon the foregoing, the Court recommends Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 18) be DENIED.
The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The Parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).
DATED this 4th day of February 2025.
/s/ 	Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 In their Reply Brief, Defendants raises two new issues. ECF No. 28. First, they argue Plaintiff failed to follow
Local Rule 6.2(b) with his Second Motion for Extension which should result in a finding that his Response to
Defendants’ Summary Judgement was untimely filed. However, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion and
considered Plaintiff’s Response as timely filed. ECF No. 29. Defendant also argues Plaintiff failed to comply with
Local Rule 56.1(b) and the uncontroverted facts contained within Defendants Statement of Undisputed Facts should
be deemed admitted. This Court finds the Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts (ECF No. 26) substantially complies with
the provisions of Local Rule 56.1 and the facts from Defendants Statement of Undisputed Facts should not be
deemed admitted.
Case 6:23-cv-06081-SOH Document 32 Filed 02/04/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>