Case: 25CI1:19-cv-00375 Document #: 120 Filed: 02/25/2020 Page 1 of 6

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

CITY OF JACKSON PLAINTIFF

VS. CASE NO. 19-375

SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., SIEMENS

CORPORATION, SIEMENS AG, CHRIS
MCNEIL, U.S. CONSOLIDATED, INC.,
M.A.C. & ASSOCIATES, LLC, IVISION IT
CONSULTANTS LLC, GARRETT
ENTERPRISES CONSOLIDATED, INC.,
and JOHN DOES 1-10. DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANT GARRETT ENTERPRISES CONSOLIDATED, INC.’S MOTION FOR

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

COMES NOW Defendant Garrett Enterprises Consolidated, Inc. (“Garrett”), by and

through counsel, and for its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees under the Mississippi Litigation

Accountability Act, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-55-1 et seq., against Plaintiff City of Jackson (the

“City”) does hereby state as follows:

1. The City initiated the instant suit by filing its Complaint on June 11, 2019 [Doc. 2], as

amended November 12, 2019 [Doc. 70].

2. Neither the initial Complaint nor the First Amended Complaint leveled any specific

allegations against Garrett. Instead, the First Amended Complaint simply attempted to

bootstrap Garrett to the allegedly wrongful acts of the Siemens defendants through vague

charges of civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment. See Doc. 70.

3. Indeed, to the extent that Garrett was mentioned at all in the First Amended Complaint, it

was to defame it, along with the other subcontractor defendants, as a “sham” or “pass-

through” subcontractor that did not perform any work. See id.

1
Case: 25CI1:19-cv-00375 Document #: 120 Filed: 02/25/2020 Page 2 of 6

4. Specifically, the only true allegations against Garrett in the First Amended Complaint were

all premised on behavior alleged against the Siemens defendants: either Garrett conspired

with them to do no work, or Garrett performed work negligently under their control or

supervision. Id. At no point in the First Amended Complaint, however, is Garrett alleged

to have made any representations to, signed any contracts with, or otherwise engaged with

the City at all. Id.

5. On or about February 19, 2020, the City announced that it was settling with the Siemens

defendants for the full amount of their contract with the City.

6. The following day, February 20, 2020, the City filed a Notice of Dismissal of Garrett

“without prejudice.” See Doc. 115.

7. The City did not pay Garrett’s costs as required by Rule 41(a)(1)(i), or request such a bill

of costs from Garrett.

8. The same day, the City moved to voluntarily dismiss Defendants U.S. Consolidated, Inc.

and U.S. Consolidated Group LLC. On February 24, 2020, the City moved to voluntarily

dismiss Defendant Mueller Systems, LLC, also “without prejudice.”

9. At no point did Garrett settle with or admit any liability to the City.

10. The City has not released Garrett or otherwise finally waived or dismissed any of its alleged

claims against Garrett.

11. Thus, the City dragged Garrett into this lawsuit, asserting and pursuing no real claims, and

then voluntarily dismissed Garrett after reaching a settlement with the Siemens defendants,

the only parties against whom the City had colorable claims from the outset.

12. Meanwhile, the City has preserved the right to refile against Garrett in another lawsuit,

which would then be assigned to another judge.

2
Case: 25CI1:19-cv-00375 Document #: 120 Filed: 02/25/2020 Page 3 of 6

13. As a result of the City’s actions, Garrett has incurred substantial costs and attorneys’ fees

for no reason whatsoever, as well as having its reputation as a contractor significantly

damaged by the City’s baseless assertions, both in the First Amended Complaint and in the

press conference and press release announcing its settlement with the Siemens defendants.

14. Pursuant to the Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-55-5(1):

[I]n any civil action commenced or appealed in any court of record in this state, the
court shall award, as part of its judgment and in addition to any other costs
otherwise assessed, reasonable attorney's fees and costs against any party or
attorney if the court, upon the motion of any party or on its own motion, finds that
an attorney or party brought an action, or asserted any claim or defense, that is
without substantial justification, or that the action, or any claim or defense asserted,
was interposed for delay or harassment, or if it finds that an attorney or party
unnecessarily expanded the proceedings by other improper conduct including, but
not limited to, abuse of discovery procedures available under the Mississippi Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Id.

15. Subsection 2 of Section 11-55-5, which limits attorneys’ fees in the case of voluntary

dismissal, is inapplicable, because the limitation only applies if the voluntary dismissal “is

filed…within a reasonable time after the attorney or party filing the action…knows or

reasonable should have known that it would not prevail on the action….” Id. § 11-55-5(2).

16. Here, the City knew or should have known prior to filing its initial Complaint that it had

no colorable claims against Garrett.

17. The City’s subsequent dismissal came less than a week after the City demanded that Garrett

respond to its discovery requests, and only three (3) days after Garrett served its Responses

and Objections thereto, at the City’s insistence. See Doc. 112.

18. In other words, not only did the City fail to assert any valid claims or actionable facts

against Garrett and allow this case to proceed for months for no reason, it was engaged in

3
 Case: 25CI1:19-cv-00375 Document #: 120 Filed: 02/25/2020 Page 4 of 6

settlement discussions with the Siemens defendants while simultaneously demanding

discovery responses from Garrett.

19. The City has knowingly caused Garrett to incur substantial litigation costs and attorneys’

fees for absolutely no reason aside from the receipt of documents which (i) it did not have

time to review prior to announcing its settlement, and which (ii) it could have easily

procured via subpoena. In short, despite its attempt at voluntary dismissal, without payment

of Garrett’s costs, the City’s delay was not reasonable.

20. For these reasons, Garrett asks the Court to find that the City’s actions in filing and

pursuing the instant suit against Garrett, and in pursuit of discovery against Garrett the

same week that it settled with the Seimens defendants, only to later attempt to dismiss

Garrett without prejudice, and without settlement, release and waiver, was without

substantial justification and unreasonable, and to award Garrett its costs and attorneys’ fees

incurred in defending this meritless suit.

21. Lastly, given the brevity of the foregoing, Garrett seeks leave from the obligation to file a

separate supporting memorandum.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Garrett Enterprises Consolidated,

Inc., respectfully moves the Court for an award of its costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the

Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-55-1 et seq., against Plaintiff

City of Jackson and its counsel, as the Court seeks fit, and for such further relief as the Court deems

proper.

4
 Case: 25CI1:19-cv-00375 Document #: 120 Filed: 02/25/2020 Page 5 of 6

Respectfully submitted, this the 25th day of February 2020.

/s/Dorsey R. Carson, Jr.

Dorsey R. Carson, Jr. (MSB #10493)
Eric F. Hatten (MSB #10428)
Lindsay K. Roberts (MSB #105723)
Attorneys for Defendant
GARRETT ENTERPRISES CONSOLIDATED, INC.

OF COUNSEL:

CARSON LAW GROUP, PLLC

125 S. Congress Street, Suite 1336
Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Telephone: (601) 351-9831
Facsimile: (601) 510-9056
Email: dcarson@thecarsonlawgroup.com
32T 32T

ehatten@thecarsonlawgroup.com
lroberts@thecarsonlawgroup.com
32T 32T

5
 Case: 25CI1:19-cv-00375 Document #: 120 Filed: 02/25/2020 Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Dorsey R. Carson, Jr., do hereby certify that I have this day filed the above-styled

document electronically with the Clerk of Court, which constitutes service by Notice of Electronic

Filing upon participants registered in this case with ECF.

This the 25th day of February 2020.

/s/Dorsey R. Carson, Jr.

OF COUNSEL