828 S.E.2d 276
W. Va.2019Background
- Ben and Diane Goldstein sued Peacemaker National Training Center and Peacemaker Properties in Berkeley County circuit court (2015), alleging noise from a shooting range constituted a nuisance and seeking injunctive relief and money damages.
- Berkeley County had a noise ordinance (adopted 2007, amended 2009) that expressly exempts lawful shooting ranges from its limits; Peacemaker began operations after that ordinance was in effect.
- In April 2017 the West Virginia Legislature amended W. Va. Code § 61-6-23 to add § 61-6-23(e)(1) (prohibiting injunctions or nuisance/criminal suits for noise if the range complies with local noise ordinances in effect when it began) and § 61-6-23(f) (declaring the amendment retroactive).
- Respondents moved for summary judgment based on the 2017 amendment and Berkeley County’s exemption; the circuit court granted summary judgment and denied Petitioners’ motion for attorneys’ fees and additional sanctions arising from a discovery dispute.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal as to injunctive relief (range protected under § 61-6-23(e)(1) because Berkeley County’s ordinance exempts ranges) but reversed as to money damages, holding the Goldsteins’ pleaded claim for monetary relief vested before the 2017 amendment and could not be retroactively abrogated; the court affirmed denial of fee and sanction awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 61-6-23(e)(1) bars a nuisance suit against a shooting range operating in a county whose noise ordinance exempts ranges | Goldstein: statute shouldn’t immunize ranges where local ordinance provides no operative standards; exemption means nothing to "comply with" | Peacemaker: County chose to exempt ranges; under § 61-6-23(e)(1) a range that does not violate local ordinances cannot be enjoined or sued for noise | Held: § 61-6-23(e)(1) bars injunctive/nuisance claims for noise because Berkeley County’s ordinance exempted ranges, so range is necessarily "in compliance" with local ordinance |
| Whether the 2017 amendment may be applied retroactively to bar Goldsteins’ claim for money damages | Goldstein: complaint included a demand for monetary damages (costs, "any other damages") that vested pre-amendment and cannot be retroactively eliminated | Peacemaker: complaint sought injunctive relief and amendment can be retroactive to bar the suit | Held: retroactivity cannot extinguish a vested claim for money damages; Goldsteins sufficiently pleaded monetary relief, so claim for damages survives and summary judgment as to damages was reversed |
| Whether Petitioners were entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under Rule 37 after prevailing in part on a motion to compel | Goldstein: discovery commissioner found they "substantially prevailed" and circuit court erred in denying mandatory fee award under Rule 37(a)(4)(A) | Peacemaker: there was a legitimate discovery dispute; Rule 37(a)(4)(C) and the "substantially justified" exception apply | Held: denial of fees and additional sanctions was not an abuse of discretion; respondents’ objections were "substantially justified" and the court correctly exercised discretion |
| Whether summary judgment on injunctive relief required further factual development (compliance with ordinance) | Goldstein: whether range was in compliance is a factual question precluding summary judgment | Peacemaker: Berkeley County’s exemption means compliance is a legal conclusion for the court | Held: because the local ordinance expressly exempts shooting ranges, as a matter of law the range could not be out of compliance; injunctive relief barred as matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189 (West Va. 1994) (standard for statutory construction and review)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (distinction between retroactive application to prospective equitable relief vs. vested legal rights)
- Gribben v. Kirk, 197 W. Va. 20 (W. Va. 1996) (legislature may not retroactively eliminate vested property rights)
- Sally-Mike Properties v. Yokum, 179 W. Va. 48 (W. Va. 1986) (American rule on attorney fees; exception for fee-shifting rules)
- Jenkins v. Clayton, 273 Ga. 439 (Ga. 2001) (statute like Georgia’s bars nuisance injunctions where no local ordinance violated; range immune if no applicable local ordinance existed)
- 3 Rivers Logistics, Inc. v. Brown-Wright Post No. 158 of Am. Legion, 548 S.W.3d 137 (Ark. 2018) (Arkansas court applied analogous statute to grant immunity where no local noise control ordinance restricted the range)