Mike Land Heath File
Mike Land Heath File
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
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
THIRD DEFENSE
All or part of the claims asserted in this action are barred by any applicable statute of
limitations.
FOURTH DEFENSE
FIFTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant acted, at all
SIXTH DEFENSE
SEVENTH DEFENSE
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
TENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff has failed to show any causal link between any activity engaged in by Defendant
ELEVENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims in this action are invalid, as the Shared Services Agreement in question
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
PARTIES
1. Defendant ADMITS, upon information and belief, the allegations of Paragraph 1 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
VENUE
FACTS
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-
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count II
Tortious Breach of Contract
16. Defendant repeats and incorporates by reference each and every defense, admission
and denial to paragraphs 1-15 hereinabove as if the same were specifically set out herein.
18. Defendant repeats and incorporates by reference each and every defense, admission
and denial to paragraphs 1-17 hereinabove as if the same were specifically set out herein.
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
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.
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
PARTIES
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
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
FACTS
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
traditional barbershop.
does not compete with Counter-Defendant’s business at all. Counter-Claimant currently works
called The Township at Highland Colony Parkway, not in an aging residential section of northern
Madison.
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.
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.
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
made by and through counsel or via any other method of publication would be defamatory
utterances.
Counter-Defendant’s employability.
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
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.
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-
19. Upon information and belief, discovery will reveal other false and defamatory words
COUNTERCLAIM I
COMMON LAW RESTRAINT OF TRADE
20. By attempting to impose an unfair and abusive non-compete agreement on Counter-
Counter-Claimant’s right to earn a living. The Counter-Defendant, through its aggressive action
COUNTERCLAIM II
DEFAMATION
21. Counter-Claimant has suffered damage to his livelihood and reputation as a result of
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
24. Emotional distress was a direct consequence that Counter-Defendant should have
COUNTERCLAIM III
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
26. Counter-Claimant realleges and incorporates by reference those paragraphs set forth
27. Upon information and belief, Counter-Defendant acted with extreme and outrageous
offering of an invalid non-compete contract, and further by the harassment involved in the
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
JURY DEMANDED
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
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
5. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief stating that Counter-Defendant Mike
Land d/b/a Family Barber shall not attempt to contact Counter-Claimant again in this or any
6. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief stating that Counter-Defendant Mike
Land d/b/a Family Barber shall not go within 100 (one hundred) feet of the physical location of
8. Such other injunctive and/or declaratory relief as may be appropriate in this matter,
13. For such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and proper.
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]
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
By:
William F. Longwitz
Mike Land d/b/a Family Barber appears and responds to the Counter Claim asserted on
AFFIRMATIVE MATTERS
1. The Counter Claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
ANSWER
Parties
Jurisdiction
3. Land denies the allegations of paragraph 3, and specifically avers that the Chancery
Venue
4. Land denies the allegations of paragraph 4, and specifically avers that venue is proper
Facts
5. Land admits that Counter-Defendant is a barber shop located on Hoy Road in Madison,
Case: 45CH1:20-cv-00233 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/01/2020 Page 2 of 5
Mississippi. Expect as specifically admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 5 are denied.
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
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 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
3
Case: 45CH1:20-cv-00233 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/01/2020 Page 4 of 5
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
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan B. Fairbank,
MSB No.: 5119
Post Office Box 13276
Jackson, MS. 39236-3276
Telephone: (601) 956-8999
E-mail: [email protected]
4
Case: 45CH1:20-cv-00233 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/01/2020 Page 5 of 5
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: