McComb Police Chief Greg Martin and his attorney, John Ott of McComb, disagree with Mayor Zach Patterson’s assertion that he does not want to delay his libel suit against Martin, calling a motion filed by the mayor last week an attempt to do just that.
Ott, in response to the mayor’s motion asking Pike County Circuit Judge David Strong to vacate or amend the order of continuance the judge granted Patterson at a June 14 hearing, said the judge should regard the mayor’s court filings as “frivolous.”
Patterson’s actions are laid out in Ott’s response to the mayor’s motion that Ott filed in Pike County Circuit Court on Thursday.
It alleges that this is Patterson’s fifth request for a continuance in the slander case the mayor has filed against the police chief, and Martin has not requested one.
Martin has filed a countersuit against the mayor.
“The court should look at the most recent motion with great suspicion,” Ott’s motion reads.
Prior to the June 14 hearing, Patterson filed a motion for continuance that acknowledged Ott “has expended appropriate time and work preparing for the trial (that had been scheduled for June 15). This work in large part would have to be repeated if this matter is continued.”
The response also cites the portion of Patterson’s initial motion that reads “I acknowledge that it is proper and appropriate that I and or my counsel should be directed to pay Mr. Martin’s counsel the value and cost of this work,” and that Strong ordered Patterson, not his attorney, to pay Martin $4,500 for attorney fees.
Patterson labeled this figure — about 40 percent of the $11,374 Ott requested in a bill submitted at the June 14 hearing — “excessive” in the motion to amend the continuance filed last Friday.
The motion was filed the day before the mayor’s court-ordered deadline to pay the fee.
“Although he specifically agreed and promised to pay said attorney fees, he is now refusing to honor not only his own words but also the order of this court,” the motion reads. “Surely Mayor Patterson cannot object to (Ott’s) hourly rate of $150 when he has approved payment by the (city) to the Malachi Group and other professional services costing up to $300 per hour.”
The response reads, “Patterson made no objection, and had no questions about the attorney fee bill presented in open court ... on June 14. He did not present any argument or evidence to the contrary. Rather, he sat passively while waiting to hear the announcement that Judge Strong was going to allow (Patterson’s former attorney, Charles Miller of McComb) to withdraw, order payment of some attorney fees, and grant a five-week continuance to July 19.”
The response points out that “rather than paying within 10 days as ordered by the court, Mayor Patterson then decided to object to the order — nine days after the order was entered.”
The response argues that the continuance “was conditioned upon (Patterson’s) payment of Chief Martin’s attorney fees as ordered by the court. Therefore, he has breached the condition for the ... continuance and should not be entitled to another one. Mayor Patterson is clearly attempting to make a mockery of the court system.”
The response also objects to Patterson’s claim that he has “contacted a couple of attorneys who have conflicts on that date.” Attorney conflict is another condition Strong laid out for the continuance on June 14. The mayor cannot hire an attorney that will have a conflict on July 19. Patterson did not initially object to this condition.
“The local telephone book lists 67 attorneys in the Yellow Pages, yet Mayor Patterson has only contacted two?” the response reads. “Obviously, he has not diligently searched for legal representation despite the court’s order.”
The response disagrees with Patterson’s request for additional discovery. He made the request in the motion he filed last Friday. The closure of discovery is another condition Strong laid out before granting the continuance on June 14. The mayor did not initially object to this condition.
Ott’s response argues that Rule 4.04 of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice requires the completion of discovery “90 days from service of answer of the applicable defendant.”
“This deadline has long since passed,” the response argues. “No good cause has been shown for any extension of discovery.”
The response argues that Patterson’s motion to amend the continuance goes against the state’s Rules of Civil Procedure, which prohibit “any party from filing a motion or a pleading which, in the opinion of the court, is frivolous or is filed with the purpose of harassment or delay. The court may order a party or his attorney, or both, to pay the opposing party the reasonable expenses incurred by the other party and their attorneys, including attorney fees.”
In closing, the response “prays that the court deny (Patterson’s) motion ... find that (Patterson) continues to file frivolous pleadings for the purpose of harassment and delay, and that (Patterson) be ordered to pay Martin’s additional attorney fees.”
