Case: 61CH1:16-cv-02343 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/29/2016 Page 1 of 4

Case: 61CH1:16-cv-02343 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/29/2016 Page 2 of 4

Case: 61CH1:16-cv-02343 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/29/2016 Page 3 of 4
Case: 61CH1:16-cv-02343 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/29/2016 Page 4 of 4
 Case: 61CH1:16-cv-02343 Document #: 11 Filed: 02/13/2017 Page 1 of 10

IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF RANKIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

PINEBROOK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

DANNY MCDILL, LORI VOSS, LEIGH ANN LAMM,
J.P. MARTIN, JANET ALDRIDGE AND DREW HOLLAND PLAINTIFFS

vs CAUSE NO.: 16-2343

PINELANDS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DEFENDANT

ANSWER AND DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT

PINELAND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

COMES NOW Defendant, Pinelands Public Improvement District (PPID) and for its

Answer and Defenses to the Complaint states as follows:

FIRST DEFENSE

Motion to Dismiss-Rule 12(b)(6)

Pursuant to Miss. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), some or all of the Plaintiffs claims should be

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, for among other reasons,

Plaintiff cannot prove that Defendant is subject to the Mississippi Public Records Act.

SECOND DEFENSE

Motion to Dismiss-Statute of Limitations &/or Laches

Some or all of the Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed as such claims are barred by the

applicable statute of limitations and/or the doctrine of laches.

THIRD DEFENSE

Motion to Dismiss-Rule 12(b)(4)

Pursuant to Miss. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4), Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed for

insufficiency of process.

Page 1 of 10
 Case: 61CH1:16-cv-02343 Document #: 11 Filed: 02/13/2017 Page 2 of 10

FOURTH DEFENSE

Motion to Dismiss-Rule 12(b)(5)

Pursuant to Miss. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5), Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed for

insufficiency of service of process.

FIFTH DEFENSE

Motion to Dismiss-Rule 12(b)(7)

Pursuant to Miss. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4), Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed for failure to

join a party under Rule 19.

SIXTH DEFENSE

Motion to Dismiss Lack of Standing

Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed because of Plaintiffs lack of standing

SEVENTH DEFENSE

Motion to Dismiss Not Real Party in Interest

Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed because Plaintiffs are not real parties in interest.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

Without waiving any defenses set forth herein, PPID answers the Plaintiffs Complaint,

paragraph by paragraph as follows:

1. PPID lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of

Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and therefore, the same are denied

2. PPID lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of

Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and therefore, the same are denied.

Page 2 of 10
 Case: 61CH1:16-cv-02343 Document #: 11 Filed: 02/13/2017 Page 3 of 10

3. The factual allegations of this paragraph are admitted. However, the statements of law

found in this paragraph require no response from PPID; to the extent that a response to the

statements of law is required, PPID denies those allegations.

4. The statements of law found in this paragraph require no response from PPID; to the extent

that a response to the statements of law is required, PPID denies those allegations.

5. Denied.

6. Denied.

7. Denied.

8. Denied.

9. Denied.

10. Denied.

11. Denied.

12. Denied.

13. Denied.

14. All of the allegations of the last unnumbered paragraph beginning WHEREFORE

premises considered, are denied.

NINTH DEFENSE

PPID specifically denies any allegation of the Plaintiffs Complaint not otherwise

responded to above.

TENTH DEFENSE

Defendant affirmatively denies any duty owed to Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Defendant denies

any breach of duty, and any damages resulting therefrom.

Page 3 of 10
 Case: 61CH1:16-cv-02343 Document #: 11 Filed: 02/13/2017 Page 4 of 10

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

To the extent that Plaintiffs may have been damaged, the damages were proximately caused

in whole or in part by their own comparative negligence.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

Defendant is not liable to Plaintiffs for any negligence, conduct, action, failure or omission

on the part of any other party or non-party which caused or contributed to the incident and

Plaintiffs alleged damages, if any.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any, in whole or in part.

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

Defendant denies each and every material allegation of the Complaint by which the

Plaintiff seeks to impose liability on the Defendant and denies any responsibility for the alleged

incident and the Plaintiffs alleged damages.

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

While specifically denying any duty was owed, Defendant pleads impossibility.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

While specifically denying any duty was owed, Defendant pleads compliance under the

law, including but not limited to Mississippi Code of 1972 19-31-1 et. seq.

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

At all times and as to all matters material to the Complaint, PPID acted reasonably and in

accordance with law and did not breach any duty owed to the Plaintiffs.

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE

Defendant pleads the defense of the unclean hands doctrine.

Page 4 of 10
 Case: 61CH1:16-cv-02343 Document #: 11 Filed: 02/13/2017 Page 5 of 10

NINETEENTH DEFENSE

Defendant pleads accord and satisfaction.

TWENTITH DEFENSE

Defendant pleads doctrine of preemption.

TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE

Defendant pleads doctrine of equitable estoppel.

TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE

Defendant pleads the Defendant cannot be liable to the extent that Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs

consented to the actions of the Defendant.

TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE

Defendant pleads Defendant cannot be liable to the extent that Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs

ratified the actions of the Defendant.

TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

Defendant pleads Defendant cannot be liable to the extent that Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs

failed to perform any obligations owed either to the Defendant or the other Plaintiffs.

TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE

Defendant pleads Plaintiffs, under no circumstances, are owed attorneys fees, costs and/or

any other monetary damages.

TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE

Defendant pleads compliance under the law and/or complete performance.

TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs are not entitled to privileged information.

Page 5 of 10
 Case: 61CH1:16-cv-02343 Document #: 11 Filed: 02/13/2017 Page 6 of 10

TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE

While denying that the Plaintiffs can establish that Defendant is subject to the Public

Records Act, Defendant affirmatively pleads that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Public

Records Act in their requests.

TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE

While denying that the Plaintiffs can establish that Defendant is subject to the Public

Records Act, Defendant affirmatively pleads that Defendant has not willfully or knowingly

violated any law and/or the rights of the Plaintiffs.

THIRTIETH DEFENSE

Without waiving any other defense, and pleading in the alternative, Defendant further

hereby pleads and alleges that it is entitled to all rights, benefits and privileges afforded to it as

passed by and set forth in the 2002 Mississippi Laws Third Extraordinary Session, Chapter 4 (H.B.

19) Civil Justice Reform Act and the 2004 Mississippi Laws First Extraordinary Session, Chapter

1 (H.B. 13) Civil Procedure Tort Reform Venues; Damages; Juries, etc.

THIRTY-FIRST DEFENSE

Without waiving any other defenses, and specifically denying that the Plaintiff has pleaded

a punitive damages claim, Defendant pleads and alleges that it is entitled to all benefits, protections

and holdings as rendered by the United States Supreme Court's decision styled "State Farm Mutual

Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003)."

THIRTY-SECOND DEFENSE

Defendant affirmatively alleges and avers that the seeking of punitive damages against it

is in violation of Miss. R. Civ. P. 11 and Mississippi's Litigation Accountability Act. To the extent

that Plaintiffs made claims for punitive damages, which Defendant denies having been made,

Page 6 of 10
 Case: 61CH1:16-cv-02343 Document #: 11 Filed: 02/13/2017 Page 7 of 10

Defendant hereby moves the Court to dismiss the claim for punitive damages and award Defendant

attorneys' fees and proper costs against the Plaintiffs for improperly alleging and seeking punitive

damages.

THIRTY-THIRD DEFENSE

Without waiving any other defense, and pleading in the alternative, Defendant invokes the

provisions of Miss. Code Ann. 11-1-65 and all rights afforded to Defendant as stated therein.

THIRTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

Although denying that the Plaintiff is seeking and/or entitled to punitive damages, or any

relief whatsoever as against Defendant, Defendant affirmatively pleads that:

(1) An award of punitive damages in this civil action would amount to deprivation of

property without due process of law in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United

States Constitution and Section 14 of the Mississippi Constitution.

(2) An award of punitive damages in this civil action would violate the due process

provisions of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and Section 14 of

the Mississippi Constitution.

(3) The criteria used for determining whether and what amount of punitive damages

may be awarded are impermissibly vague, imprecise and inconsistent and are therefore in violation

of the due process provisions of the 5th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution.

(4) An award of punitive damages in this civil action would amount to an excessive

fine in violation of the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution and of Section 28 of the

Mississippi Constitution.

Page 7 of 10
 Case: 61CH1:16-cv-02343 Document #: 11 Filed: 02/13/2017 Page 8 of 10

(5) An award of punitive damages in this civil action would violate the equal protection

provisions of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution in that such a sanction is

discriminatory and arbitrary in penalizing a defendant on the basis of assets.

(6) To the extent that Defendant is subjected to a criminal sanction or sanctions through

punitive damages, the burden of proof required to impose the same shall be to prove "beyond a

reasonable doubt," and punitive damages should not be awarded without affording the Defendant

the full range of criminal procedural safeguards granted by the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments to

the United States Constitution.

(7) The award of punitive damages in this civil action would violate similar and related

provisions, as noted above, of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi.

THIRTY-FIFTH DEFENSE

PPID reserves its right to amend its Answer to include any other appropriate affirmative

defenses which may be developed through discovery and/or investigation of the subject incident.

THIRTY-SIXTH DEFENSE

The facts not having been fully developed, PPID further affirmatively pleads the following

affirmative defenses as may be applicable in this action: accord and satisfaction, arbitration and

award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel,

failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata and

collateral estoppel, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, waiver, intervening and superseding

cause, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, PPID requests that the Complaint against

it be dismissed, with all costs assessed to the Plaintiffs, and that a judgment be entered that the

Plaintiffs take nothing of and from PPID.

Page 8 of 10
 Case: 61CH1:16-cv-02343 Document #: 11 Filed: 02/13/2017 Page 9 of 10

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this the 13th day of February, 2017.

PINELANDS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

BY:__/s/ Timothy J. Sterling____________
ROBERT C. RICHARDSON (MSB No. 5330)
TIMOTHY J. STERLING (MSB No. 103063)
Attorneys for Pineland Public Improvement District

OF COUNSEL:
COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR AND BUSH, P.A.
600 Concourse, Suite 100
1076 Highland Colony Parkway
Post Office Box 6020
Ridgeland, Mississippi 39158
Tel.: 601-856-7200
Fax: 601-856-7626
gcopeland@cctb.com
tsterling@cctb.com

Page 9 of 10
 Case: 61CH1:16-cv-02343 Document #: 11 Filed: 02/13/2017 Page 10 of 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Timothy J. Sterling, do hereby certify that I have electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court using the ECF System which sent notification of such filing to the following:

Mel Coxwell
P.O. Box 316
Brandon, MS 39043
mel@centralmslaw.com

Brad D. Wilkinson
Wilkinson Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 321408
Flowood, MS 39232
bradw@homelandtitle.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

This the 13th day of February, 2017.

_____/s/ Timothy J. Sterling__________

Timothy J. Sterling

Page 10 of 10