Braman lawsuit filed

By FRITZ BUSCH

Journal Staff Writer

NEW ULM -- A five-count civil court complaint against the City of Sleepy Eye, two police officers and three city councilors was filed Thursday in Brown County Fifth Judicial District Court.

Former Sleepy Eye Police Chief Elvin Braman is plaintiff in the case. Defendants are police officers John Schueller and Robert Paulson and councilors Richard Zinniel, Lester Reinarts and Harold Windschitl.

Braman was Sleepy Eye Police Chief Feb. 11, 1999 to April 5, 1999 and again from April 12, 1999 to Oct. 10, 1999.

Complaint counts include defamation, breach of implied contract, broken promises, fraudulent misrepresentation and interference with contract. A jury trial was demanded.

The defendants have 20 days to answer the complaint.

Attorneys in the case have until Jan. 1, 2002 to submit their schedules before pre-trial proceedings would be set.

Schueller and Paulson were officers under Braman while he was police chief.

The council terminated Braman on a 3-2 vote April 6, 1999, less than two months after he moved to Sleepy Eye from Utah. Zinniel, Reinarts and Windschitl voted to terminate Braman's contract.

Six days later, Braman was reinstated as police chief after a closed meeting. Conditions were that his performance would be evaluated every two months during a six-month probationary period by the police commission, according to the complaint.

Braman was terminated again at the end of his probationary period at the Sleepy Eye City Council's Oct. 5, 1999 meeting.

Minneapolis attorney William J. Mavity is representing Braman in the case. Defendants were served complaint papers Oct. 5, 2001.

The complaint requested awarding Braman damages of $50,000 or more, legal fees, costs and other relief.

Mavity commented briefly on the original 14-page, 57-paragraph complaint.

"It's a small town but a fairly serious case," Mavity said. "We have a number of claims and lay out the facts to support them."

St. Paul attorney Julie Fleming-Wolfe, representing the defendants for the League of Minnesota Cities, wrote a five-page, 19 paragraph, 10-defense answer to the original complaint before it was filed in court.

The answer denied allegations in 35 of 57 paragraphs. It cited lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. It also claimed the court lacked jurisdiction over some or all of the plaintiff's claims.

The document said the complaint failed to state claims upon which relief may be granted; and that claims should be barred because statements made by defendants were "true expressions or opinion, and therefore absolutely privileged, barred by doctrines of discretionary immunity, qualified immunity, official immunity and/or common law immunity."

The document said statements made by defendants were "true, made in good faith, without malice, on proper occasion, for proper purpose and privileged."

The answer called for dismissal of the complaint and awarding the defendants all costs and attorney fees, and further relief. If there was any injury, damage or harm, it was a result of the plaintiff's own acts, omissions or conduct, it said.