Attorneys Kroll and Murtha convinced the Third Circuit that Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim lacked merit because Plaintiff failed to prove retaliatory animus was the motivating force behind the municipal actions taken. Plaintiffs were a group of disgruntled businesses in Gettysburg Pennsylvania who claimed the Borough amended its parking ordinance to prevent them, and only them, from being able to reserve certain parking meters in front of their businesses, thereby reducing their revenue by millions of dollars. Plaintiffs claimed that the amendment was enacted in retaliation for Plaintiffs’ successful defense to a prior zoning enforcement action prosecuted by the Borough that received significant media attention to the Borough’s chagrin. However, Attorneys Kroll and Murtha secured summary judgment for their clients convincing the District Court that Plaintiffs had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish that retaliatory animus was a motivating factor for any member of the Borough Council, much less a majority of those who voted in favor of amending the ordinance. The Third Circuit agreed and affirmed the decision of the District Court.
