Jose G. Landa

Staff Writer

The legal battle between Maverick County and County Attorney Ricardo Ramos made its way to court on Friday, September 1.

Jose G. Landa

Staff Writer 

  The debacle between Maverick County and Ethelvina Felan  has found its way into the courtroom. Both parties were present at the 293rd District court on Wednesday March 15, in front of state appointed District Judge W.C. Kirkendall, attempting to settle a lawsuit seeking a writ of mandamus, permanent injunction, and declaratory judgment and request for disclosure against the county.

    Felan’s lawsuit stems from a rollback election petition filed on December 22, 2016 which the county deemed invalid on January 9, 2017. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants went beyond their legal power or authority.

    Recently, the plaintiffs legal counsel filed an amended motion for a temporary injunction against the county on Thursday, March 9, 2017. 

The County, through their legal counsel, then filed a response to the plaintiff’s Motion and Brief in Support of Temporary Injunction on Monday March 13,2017. 

    The defendants allege that the plaintiff is not able to contest the governmental action as the plaintiff fails to meet the statutory requirements, therefore the case should be dismissed, and there is no basis for a temporary injunction. 

  The county further argues that by failing to meet statutory requirements, the court should dismiss the suit for lack of standing or jurisdiction.

“This court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter because there is no basis for the claims of the plaintiffs.”

   The plaintiff argues the contrary. The county then questions the fact that the plaintiff through her attorney filed a motion for temporary injunction on March 9,2017 after the fact that the defendant had prepared its answer to the original complaint filed on February 21,2017 which did not include the temporary injunction language.

   “The reason this is not found within her petition is that there are adequate remedies at law for her alleged claims and there is no need for a temporary injunction nor for a mandatory injunction.”

    Both parties presented their final arguments before Judge W.C. Kirkendall. The judge then denied the plaintiff’s motion for temporary injunction relief on the facts and claims presented by both parties. The legal process on the issue has certain procedures that will be forthcoming in the future.