A judge dismissed a lawsuit that ex-mayoral candidate Jeff Brown filed against the Ethics Board

A Philadelphia judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by former mayoral candidate Jeff Brown and a super PAC that spent millions to back his unsuccessful bid against the city’s Board of Ethics.

Brown — as well as the PAC and a related nonprofit — argued that the city agency improperly used its power to undermine his run for mayor last year by publicly accusing him of campaign-finance violations in the middle of the race.

But Common Pleas Court Judge Daniel Anders dismissed the suit “with prejudice,” meaning the plaintiffs cannot amend their complaint and refile it in the same court. Anders wrote in court papers that his decision was based in part on the idea of governmental and official immunity, a legal doctrine that generally protects local officials from individual liability unless they clearly violate a constitutional right.

Brown and For a Better Philadelphia intend to appeal the case to Commonwealth Court, their attorney, Matthew Haverstick, said Wednesday.

Given there’s a question of constitutional rights, Haverstick said, the plaintiffs “always assumed that this case would be decided at Commonwealth Court.”

J. Shane Creamer, the executive director of the Board of Ethics, who was named as a defendant, said in a statement the board is “grateful for Judge Anders’ decision, which is based on clear law.”

» READ MORE: Inside the Board of Ethics’ case against the super PAC supporting mayoral candidate Jeff Brown

The suit stems from the hypercompetitive Democratic primary campaign for mayor last year, in which Brown, a longtime owner of local ShopRite supermarkets, was initially seen as a front-runner.

But Brown finished in fifth place after a series of campaign missteps and following the suit lodged by the Board of Ethics, which alleged the super PAC’s staff illegally coordinated with Brown and his campaign. Mayor Cherelle L. Parker won the primary decisively.

Under city law, independent expenditure committees or super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of cash as long as they do not coordinate with candidates or campaigns they are supporting.

Following the Board of Ethics filing, For a Better Philadelphia agreed to stop spending money to influence the election. But Brown and the PAC argued that they couldn’t have illegally coordinated because their communication took place before Brown formally announced his run for mayor.

The Board of Ethics’ case was dismissed in Common Pleas Court in September. The board later dropped plans to appeal that decision, saying it would instead focus on revising its own campaign finance regulations.

Brown, For a Better Philadelphia, and lawyer David Maser, the chair of the PAC, brought their own lawsuit against the board, saying the initial complain was “designed solely” to damage their reputations and interfere with the election. They argued that Creamer was biased against For a Better Philadelphia because it was a “dark money” group, meaning donations were routed through a nonprofit and donors’ names did not need to be made public.

The plaintiffs each sought a “name clearing hearing” that they said was necessary to repair their reputations.