Mike Land Heath File

Case: 45CH1:20-cv-00233 Document #: 3 Filed: 03/11/2020 Page 1 of 13

IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

MIKE LAND D/B/A
FAMILY BARBER PLAINTIFF

VS CIVIL CAUSE NO. 2020-233 W

MATTHEW HEATH DEFENDANT

DEFENDANT MATTHEW HEATH’S ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
AND DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST PLAINTIFF

Defendant Matthew Heath (Defendant) files this his Answer and his Affirmative
Defenses to the allegations made against him in the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Mike Land d/b/a
Family Barber (Plaintiff). And now, answering the allegations of the Complaint filed against him
paragraph by paragraph, Defendant would show unto this Honorable Court the following
defenses:
FIRST DEFENSE
Defendant specifically asserts and invokes all the privileges available to him for which a
good faith legal and/or factual basis exists or may exist.
SECOND DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state facts or to state a claim or cause of action against him upon
which any relief can be granted and should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.
THIRD DEFENSE
All or part of the claims asserted in this action are barred by any applicable statute of
limitations.
Defendant Matthew Heath’s Answer and Counterclaims

Civil Cause No. 2020-233 W
Page 1 of 13
FOURTH DEFENSE
Defendant was at no time bound by a valid employment agreement that would be
actionable in the present cause of action.
FIFTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant acted, at all
applicable times, reasonably and in good faith.
SIXTH DEFENSE
Defendant denies that he has been guilty of any actionable conduct.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages.
EIGHTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims in this action are based on a demonstrably invalid agreement that
exceeds in scope and content any enforceable non-compete agreement enforceable by law.
NINTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff suffered no damages.
TENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff has failed to show any causal link between any activity engaged in by Defendant
and any unfavorable or adverse action against Plaintiff.
ELEVENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims in this action are invalid, as the Shared Services Agreement in question
is void on its face as against public policy.

Page 2 of 13
TWELFTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims in this action are invalid due to lack of consideration to support the
agreement in question.
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
COMPLAINT
And now, without waiving any defense heretofore or hereinafter set forth, Defendant
responds to the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint, paragraph by paragraph, as follows:
PARTIES
1. Defendant ADMITS, upon information and belief, the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the
Complaint.
2. Defendant DENIES the allegation made in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
JURISDICTION
3. Defendant DENIES the jurisdictional allegation made in Paragraph 3. This Court lacks
jurisdiction over this action inasmuch as the action sounds in both equity and law, but the case
weighs more heavily in the interpretation of contractual law, tort law and public policy of the
state of Mississippi; therefore jurisdiction lies in the Circuit Courts of Mississippi.
VENUE
4. Defendant DENIES that venue in this matter is proper as alleged in Paragraph 4.
Defendant DENIES the remaining allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
FACTS
5. Defendant DENIES the allegations made in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.

Page 3 of 13
11. Defendant ADMITS the allegations made in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count I
Breach of Contract

13. Defendant repeats and incorporates by reference each and every defense, admission
and denial to paragraphs 1-13 hereinabove as if the same were specifically set out herein.
14. Defendant DENIES the allegations made in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, as the non-
compete agreement in question is invalid in both scope and content.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count II
Tortious Breach of Contract

SPECIFIC RELIEF AND DAMAGES REQUESTED

Page 4 of 13
20. To the extent the paragraph in the Complaint beginning with the words “WHEREFORE,
PREMISES CONSIDERED,” contains any allegations, those allegations are denied. Defendant
also denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in this or any other paragraph.
Defendant reserves the right to add additional defenses as the same become known
during the course of discovery in this cause.
REQUEST TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
WHEREFORE, now having fully answered said Complaint, Defendant requests that said
Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that Defendant be awarded costs of the suit from
Plaintiff.
COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST PLAINTIFF MIKE LAND D/B/A FAMILY BARBER
COMES NOW Counter-Claimant Matthew Heath and files these, his Counterclaims for
Affirmative Relief against Counter-Defendant Mike Land d/b/a Family Barber, and would show
unto this Honorable Court the following:
PARTIES
1. Counter-Claimant Matthew Heath (Counter-Claimant) is an adult resident citizen of
Hinds County, Mississippi.
2. Counter-Defendant Mike Land, d/b/a Family Barber (Counter-Defendant) is, upon
information and belief, a business located at 211 Hoy Road, Madison, Mississippi 39110.
JURISDICTION
3. This Court lacks jurisdiction over this action inasmuch as the action sounds in both
equity and law, but weighs more heavily in the interpretation of contractual law, tort law and

Page 5 of 13
public policy of the state of Mississippi; the Circuit Courts of Mississippi therefore have
jurisdiction.
VENUE
4. Venue is improper in this Court, and venue should be transferred to the Circuit Court of
the County where the alleged acts or omissions occurred.
FACTS
5. Counter-Defendant is a barber shop located on Hoy Road in Madison, Mississippi;
Counter-Defendant has been in the same location in residential Madison for decades, and is,
upon information and belief, primarily in the business of serving customers and families from
the immediate residential areas of Madison.
6. Counter-Defendant’s business can be fairly called an old-fashioned, decades old,
traditional barbershop.
7. Counter-Claimant’s current employer does not compete with an old-fashioned, decades
old, traditional barbershop in another town. In fact, Counter-Claimant’s current employment
does not compete with Counter-Defendant’s business at all. Counter-Claimant currently works
in a completely different type of salon in an upscale commercial area of Ridgeland, Mississippi
called The Township at Highland Colony Parkway, not in an aging residential section of northern
Madison.
8. Counter-Claimant’s employer, Noble Barber, runs a high-end salon in a high-rent section
of the most exclusive retail and dining area in Mississippi, and in one of the premier lifestyle
developments in the southeastern United States; this business is nothing like Family Barber and
cannot be fairly be said to compete with a older, traditional barber business like Family Barber.

Page 6 of 13
9. Counter-Claimant’s current employer provides a different level and kind of service from
Family Barber, inasmuch as Counter-Claimant’s current employer provides high-end cuts and
styling and also offers products that can only legally be offered to adults – not to “families” like
Family Barber does. Noble Barber, Counter-Claimant’s current employer, is licensed to serve
alcoholic beverages by the State of Mississippi and does in fact serve alcoholic beverages to
customers in a different part of the salon when they are not getting haircuts. This business in
The Township in Ridgeland is not the same kind of business Mike Land d/b/a “Family Barber”
runs in north Madison and cannot fairly be said to compete with it at all.
10. Counter-Claimant’s type of employment provides a much higher-end, cutting-edge
service than Counter-Defendant’s older, more traditional barbershop. While no formal survey
has been conducted (but it surely will be as part of discovery), it is inconceivable that the
customer base of Counter-Claimant’s current employer would consider using the services of
Counter-Defendant Mike Land’s older, less renovated and less appealing older “family-style”
barber shop. The two environments simply do not serve the same client base and objectively
do not compare.
11. If for no other reason than the fact that Counter-Defendant’s current employer serves
alcohol on the premises, there can be no comparison between the kind of service Counter-
Defendant provides and the kind of service Counter-Claimant provides. There can therefore be
no logical or reasonable way that these two very different kinds of salons could be seen as
being in direct competition with one another.
12. It is illogical that Counter-Claimant would seek to recruit Counter-Defendant Mike
Land’s traditional-barbershop-style customers, and such an allegation by Counter-Defendant

Page 7 of 13
made by and through counsel or via any other method of publication would be defamatory
utterances.
13. Counter-Defendant has intentionally and knowingly interfered with Counter-Claimant’s
employment relationship with Counter-Claimant’s current employer, causing damage to
Counter-Defendant’s employability.
14. Counter-Claimant has been prosecuted in this Honorable Court by Counter-Defendant in
an attempt by Counter-Defendant to enforce the terms of a Shared Services Agreement that is
both facially invalid and void as against public policy.
15. Upon information and belief, discovery will show that Counter-Defendant has engaged
in slander and/or libel and has engaged in defamatory communication and/or behavior
concerning Counter-Claimant.
16. Upon information and belief, discovery will show that Counter-Defendant engaged in
demonstrative and defamatory behavior in front of Counter-Claimant’s current place of
employment, and that such behavior by Counter-Defendant was aimed at defaming Counter-
Claimant and interfering with Counter-Claimant’s ability to work and earn a living.
17. Counter-Defendant seeks to impose on Counter-Claimant an abusive and unfair non-
compete agreement. Despite the agreement’s invalidity in form and content, Counter-
Defendant nonetheless seeks to use this Court’s resources to impose the terms of said
agreement.
18. Upon information and belief, and in addition to the unreasonable agreement, Counter-
Defendant seeks to undermine Counter-Claimant’s current effort at gainful employment by

Page 8 of 13
repeatedly making visits to Counter-Claimant’s current workplace and making demonstrative
gestures aimed at interfering with Counter-Claimant’s livelihood.
19. Upon information and belief, discovery will reveal other false and defamatory words
and actions by Counter-Defendant and its agents.
COUNTERCLAIM I
COMMON LAW RESTRAINT OF TRADE

20. By attempting to impose an unfair and abusive non-compete agreement on Counter-
Claimant, Counter-Defendant has sought to place unfair and unreasonable restraints on
Counter-Claimant’s right to earn a living. The Counter-Defendant, through its aggressive action
against a working barber, would deprive Counter-Claimant of gainful employment, impede
labor market competition and contribute to reduced wages in the economy.
COUNTERCLAIM II
DEFAMATION

21. Counter-Claimant has suffered damage to his livelihood and reputation as a result of
Counter-Defendant’s defamatory words and actions, as discovery will show.
COUNTERCLAIM III
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

22. Counter-Defendant owed a duty to Counter-Claimant to act as a reasonable, prudent
person. This duty includes an obligation to act in a careful, lawful and prudent matter in full
compliance with all state statutes and common law.
23. Counter-Defendant’s conduct toward Counter-Claimant resulted in a breach of Counter-
Defendant’s duty to act as a reasonable, prudent person.

Page 9 of 13
24. Emotional distress was a direct consequence that Counter-Defendant should have
reasonably anticipated and taken steps to guard against.
25. As a result of Counter-Defendant’s breach of its duty, Counter-Claimant suffered legally
compensable emotional distress damages.
COUNTERCLAIM III
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

26. Counter-Claimant realleges and incorporates by reference those paragraphs set forth
above as if fully set forth herein.
27. Upon information and belief, Counter-Defendant acted with extreme and outrageous
conduct by intentionally causing Counter-Claimant’s emotional distress through the knowing
offering of an invalid non-compete contract, and further by the harassment involved in the
attempted enforcement of said contract.
COUNTERCLAIM IV
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OR CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP

28. Counter-Defendant has knowingly and intentionally interfered with Counter-Claimant’s
ability to obtain gainful employment in a way that is unreasonable and unfounded, and which
bears no relation to Counter-Defendant’s type of business or scope of practice.
JURY DEMANDED
Counter-Claimant hereby demands a jury trial.
COUNTERCLAIM REQUEST FOR SPECIFIC AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable
Court grant relief as follows:

Page 10 of 13
1. Defendant and Counter-Claimant Matthew Heath requests all relief to which it may be
entitled for the causes of action set forth in this Counterclaim, including preliminary and
permanent injunctions prohibiting Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Mike Land d/b/a Family
Barber from enforcing the Shared Services Agreement at issue in this matter,
2. For entry of declaratory judgment declaring that the non-compete provisions of the
Shared Services Agreement at issue in this matter are unduly burdensome on Counter-Claimant
not narrowly drafted to protect a legitimate business interest, but are rather facially invalid as
exceeding reasonable scope and duration for the facts of Counter-Defendant’s business,
3. For entry of declaratory judgment declaring that the non-compete provisions of the
Shared Services Agreement are an unreasonable restraint of trade and therefore invalid at
common law because they are contrary to public policy,
4. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief stating that Counter-Defendant Mike
Land d/b/a Family Barber shall not attempt to enforce the provisions of the Shared Services
Agreement in question in this matter,
Land d/b/a Family Barber shall not attempt to contact Counter-Claimant again in this or any
other matter without Counter-Claimant’s express consent to such contact,
Land d/b/a Family Barber shall not go within 100 (one hundred) feet of the physical location of
Counter-Claimant’s place of employment and its curtilage, at whatever location Counter-
Claimant is employed at any given time,

Page 11 of 13
7. For declaratory judgment declaring that Counter-Defendant has committed an
impermissible restraint of trade in his present actions against Counter-Claimant,
8. Such other injunctive and/or declaratory relief as may be appropriate in this matter,
9. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial,
10. Punitive damages,
11. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
12. Costs of suit, and
13. For such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, this the 3rd day of April, 2020.

MATTHEW HEATH
By:
His attorney

William F. Longwitz (MS Bar No. 101047)
Longwitz Law Firm
P.O. Box 9
Madison, MS 39130
601.955.2254
[email protected]


Page 12 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above Answer and Affirmative
Defenses has been filed via the Court’s electronic document filing system that sent notification
of such filing to all counsel of record. I further certify that a true and correct copy of the above
Answer and Affirmative Defenses has been sent via electronic mail to Monty Simpkins, the
attorney for Plaintiff Mike Land d/b/a Family Barber.
So certified, this the 3rd day of April, 2020 at Madison, Mississippi.
By:
William F. Longwitz


Page 13 of 13
IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
MIKE LAND d/b/a

FAMILY BARBER PLAINTIFF
VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2020-233-W
MATTHEW HEATH DEFENDANT
RESPONSE OF MIKE LAND D/BA FAMILY BARBER TO COUNTER-CLAIM FILED

ON BEHALF OF MATTHEW HEATH.
Mike Land d/b/a Family Barber appears and responds to the Counter Claim asserted on
behalf of Matthew Heath.
AFFIRMATIVE MATTERS
1. The Counter Claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
ANSWER
Parties
1. Land admits the allegations of paragraph 1.
2. Land admits the allegations of paragraph 2.
Jurisdiction
3. Land denies the allegations of paragraph 3, and specifically avers that the Chancery
Court of Madison County enjoys subject matter jurisdiction.
Venue
4. Land denies the allegations of paragraph 4, and specifically avers that venue is proper
in the Chancery Court of Madison County, Mississippi.
Facts
5. Land admits that Counter-Defendant is a barber shop located on Hoy Road in Madison,
Mississippi. Expect as specifically admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 5 are denied.
6. Land denies the allegations of paragraph 6.
COUNTERCLAIM I.
COMMON LAW RESTRAINT OF TRADE
COUNTERCLAIM II.
DEFAMATION

COUNTERCLAIM III.
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
22. Land admits that he has a duty to act as a reasonable person. Except as specifically
admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 22 are denied.
COUNTERCLAIM III (sic)

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
26. Land realleges and incorporates all previous denials of those specific paragraphs of
the Counter Claim.
COUNTERCLAIM IV.
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OR CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONSHIP
JURY DEMANDED
Land admits Heath has requested a jury trial.
COUNTERCLAIM REQUEST FOR SPECIFIC AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND

DAMAGES
Land denies Heath is entitled to any relief under paragraphs 1-13, of the Counterclaim
Request for Specific and Injunctive Relief and Damages, and specifically avers that Heath is not
entitled to any relief whatsoever.
3
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Land respectfully requests that the
COUNTER CLAIM asserted on behalf of Matthew Heath be DISMISSED with prejudice, that
Land be awarded all costs incurred in defending Heath=s Counterclaim , and that Land be
awarded all attorney=s fees incurred in defending Heath=s Counterclaim.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Land d/b/a Family Barbe
By: /s/ Monty Simpkins, Esq.

Monty Simpkins, Esq.
His attorney
MSB No.: 8524
P.O. Box 670
Madison, MS. 39130-0670
Telephone: (601) 707-5460
E-Mail: [email protected]
Jonathan B. Fairbank,
MSB No.: 5119
Post Office Box 13276
Jackson, MS. 39236-3276
Telephone: (601) 956-8999
E-mail: [email protected]
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court
using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following:
William F. Longwitz, Esq.

P.O. Box 9
Madison, MS. 39130
[email protected]
As Attorney for Matthew Heath
So certified, this the 1st day of May, 2020.
/s/ Monty Simpkins

Monty Simpkins

Mike Land Heath File

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mike Land Heath File

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 45CH1:20-cv-00233 Document #: 3 Filed: 03/11/2020 Page 1 of 13

Case: 45CH1:20-cv-00233 Document #: 3 Filed: 03/11/2020 Page 2 of 13

IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

good faith legal and/or factual basis exists or may exist.

Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant Matthew Heath’s Answer and Counterclaims

Defendant was at no time bound by a valid employment agreement that would be

actionable in the present cause of action.

applicable times, reasonably and in good faith.

Defendant denies that he has been guilty of any actionable conduct.

Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages.

Plaintiff suffered no damages.

and any unfavorable or adverse action against Plaintiff.

is void on its face as against public policy.

Defendant Matthew Heath’s Answer and Counterclaims

responds to the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint, paragraph by paragraph, as follows:

2. Defendant DENIES the allegation made in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

state of Mississippi; therefore jurisdiction lies in the Circuit Courts of Mississippi.

4. Defendant DENIES that venue in this matter is proper as alleged in Paragraph 4.

Defendant DENIES the remaining allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

5. Defendant DENIES the allegations made in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.

6. Defendant DENIES the allegations made in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint.

Defendant Matthew Heath’s Answer and Counterclaims

7. Defendant DENIES the allegations made in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.

8. Defendant DENIES the allegations made in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.

9. Defendant DENIES the allegations made in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

10. Defendant DENIES the allegations made in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

11. Defendant ADMITS the allegations made in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.

12. Defendant DENIES the allegations made in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

compete agreement in question is invalid in both scope and content.

15. Defendant DENIES the allegations made in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.

17. Defendant DENIES the allegations made in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.

SPECIFIC RELIEF AND DAMAGES REQUESTED

19. Defendant DENIES the allegations made in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.

Defendant Matthew Heath’s Answer and Counterclaims

during the course of discovery in this cause.

REQUEST TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST PLAINTIFF MIKE LAND D/B/A FAMILY BARBER

unto this Honorable Court the following:

1. Counter-Claimant Matthew Heath (Counter-Claimant) is an adult resident citizen of

Hinds County, Mississippi.

2. Counter-Defendant Mike Land, d/b/a Family Barber (Counter-Defendant) is, upon

Defendant Matthew Heath’s Answer and Counterclaims

the County where the alleged acts or omissions occurred.

5. Counter-Defendant is a barber shop located on Hoy Road in Madison, Mississippi;

the immediate residential areas of Madison.

6. Counter-Defendant’s business can be fairly called an old-fashioned, decades old,

7. Counter-Claimant’s current employer does not compete with an old-fashioned, decades

old, traditional barbershop in another town. In fact, Counter-Claimant’s current employment

in a completely different type of salon in an upscale commercial area of Ridgeland, Mississippi

8. Counter-Claimant’s employer, Noble Barber, runs a high-end salon in a high-rent section

Defendant Matthew Heath’s Answer and Counterclaims

10. Counter-Claimant’s type of employment provides a much higher-end, cutting-edge

being in direct competition with one another.

12. It is illogical that Counter-Claimant would seek to recruit Counter-Defendant Mike

Land’s traditional-barbershop-style customers, and such an allegation by Counter-Defendant

Defendant Matthew Heath’s Answer and Counterclaims

13. Counter-Defendant has intentionally and knowingly interfered with Counter-Claimant’s

employment relationship with Counter-Claimant’s current employer, causing damage to

14. Counter-Claimant has been prosecuted in this Honorable Court by Counter-Defendant in

an attempt by Counter-Defendant to enforce the terms of a Shared Services Agreement that is

both facially invalid and void as against public policy.

demonstrative and defamatory behavior in front of Counter-Claimant’s current place of