Jackson Jambalaya

 Will Jackson's garbage be picked up after this weekend? Inquiring minds want to know.  WLBT reported today: 

I can confirm there is the possibility he would stop if something isn’t worked out by then,” said John Walker, attorney for the Baton Rouge-based Richard’s. “Saturday has been discussed as the last day and is what is being considered.”

Richard’s has been picking up trash in the capital city for six months. However, the firm has yet to be paid for the work.

Based on the amount Richard’s charged the city for its first two months of service, the company says it is owed more than $4.8 million....Rest of article.

 A synopsis of the case is posted below.  Richard's Disposal has been picking up Jackson's garbage since April 1 under an emergency no-bid contract and has not been paid since the City Council did not approve the contract and refused to pay all claims submitted for the company.  

Richard's sued the city for payment in U.S. District Court on July 13. 

 U.S. Magistrate Judge Mike Parker ordered the parties to try to settle the case in August but no settlement was reached.  

The plaintiff moved for summary judgement yesterday.   The motion argues the company had a valid contract with the city and has collected garbage per the contract's terms since April 1.  Richard's accuses the city of unjust enrichment since it received the service without paying for it. The company submitted invoices for services performed through August 31. 

The memorandum to support the motion claims the Mayor vetoed the Council's rejection of the emergency no-bid contract, relying on Judge Dickinson's opinion while completely ignoring Judge Larry Roberts definitive ruling that the Mayor could not veto a no-vote (p.11): 

Additionally, the Mississippi Attorney General has opined that "the mayor does not have the ultimate authority to bind the municipality to a contract. That authority lies with the city council, subject to the veto power of the mayor." (emphasis added) MS AG Op. No. 2012-00013, 2012 Miss. AG LEXIS 18, *4. "A 'mayor's veto . . . is undeniably a part of the legislative process.'" Shanks, 793 So. 2d at 579 (¶12) (quoting Bryant v. Nichols, 712 F. Supp. 887, 891 (M.D. Ala. 1989)). A mayor's veto is also an action that may be appealed under Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-51-75. Shanks, 793 So. 2d at 580 (¶15). The mayor's veto becomes 'final'— and the legislative process finally concludes—only when the municipal legislative body has had an opportunity to either accept or override the veto. Id. at 580-82 (¶¶17-24). Therefore, in this case, the initial vote of the Board of Aldermen to approve the Claims Docket was nothing more than an interlocutory step in the legislative process. Once the Mayor vetoed the Board's action, the Board's vote was legally ineffective and had no further legal significance." Warnock & Assocs., 328 So. 3d at 1263. Hence, RDI did not know of an error or failure in the COJ's contract implementation based on the Mayor's Veto....

 After the City Council failed to override the Mayor's veto, the City Council still instructed the Mayor to arrange for garbage collection services. The Mayor did arrange with RDI for garbage collection services. According to that arrangement, RDI performed services at the request of COJ and according to the terms and provisions previously used in its arrangement with Waste Management, Inc. for such emergency services....

RDI still does not know which legal opinion is correct because the determination regarding the Mayor's and City Council's opinion is still pending at the Supreme Court of Mississippi under a case separate from this case and between different parties. Surely, knowledge of a difference of opinion between the City Council and the Mayor regarding a mayoral veto is insufficient to render RDI in bad faith under the statute in question....

However, Richard's Disposal may have to wait a while before the Court rules on the motion.  Judge Parker issued an order to show cause Tuesday.  Remember that fight over the "negative veto" that was appealed to the Supreme Court? The Court stated: 

The parties have informed that Court that the Mayor has appealed the chancery court order to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which has granted a motion for an expedited decision. Following a conference with the parties, and given that the issue of the validity of the Emergency Agreement and the actions taken are before the Mississippi Supreme Court and the supreme court’s decision may affect the issues pending before this Court, the Court finds that the parties should show cause why this action should not be stayed pending a ruling from the Mississippi Supreme Court on the Mayor’s
appeal.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that on or before October 18, 2022, the parties shall show cause why this action should not be stayed pending a ruling from the Mississippi Supreme Court on the Mayor’s appeal of the Chancery Court’s Order [8-1].

What is interesting is Mayor Lumumba opposed the Mississippi Supreme Court's expedition of the appeal. Richard's is probably thankful the Court ignored the Mayor.

Synopsis

Richard's Disposal has collected Jackson's garbage since April 1 after Waste Management's contract expired.  The Jackson City Council rejected Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba's recommendation to hire Richard's Disposal after completing the RFP process.   Richard's Disposal had the lowest bid for twice a week service but customers would be forced to purchase a 96-gallon garbage cart.   Waste Management had the lowest bid for twice a week service but without the garbage cart requirement, but the bid was still higher than the Richard's Disposal bid with the garbage cart requirement.   The City Council did not want to impose such a requirement on Jackson residents so it rejected the recommendation.  

Mayor Lumumba declared a state of emergency and awarded a one-year no-bid emergency contract to Richard's Disposal.  However, the City Council rejected the contract but Mayor Lumumba  vetoed the rejection.  The veto fight went to court and Special Chancellor Larry Roberts vetoed the Mayor's veto, thus upholding the Council's rejection. 

The City Council formally notified Richard's Disposal on March 31 the Council would not pay the company for picking up garbage since it did not have a contract to do so.

Richard's Disposal continues to collect the garbage.  The emergency no-bid unapproved contract states Jackson will pay $808,035 per month.  However, the Council rejected Richard's Disposal's claim for payment since it rejected the emergency no-bid contract.  

Attorney John Walker represents the Crescent City company.  

The complaint recites the basic facts of the case but omits the notification that the City Council would not pay for the plaintiff's services.  However, the company points out a little passage in the Council's veto lawsuit: 

the City Council" recognizes the public health implications of garbage pickup during the duration of this matter, and Plaintiff, therefore, asks that the status quo continue with regard to the provision of garbage pickup service during this time of self-declared crisis. (p.6, paragraph 17 of Council complaint)

The plaintiff says a claim for $808,035 was presented to the Council on May 24 but the Council removed it from the claims docket on a 5-2 vote.  

Richard's Disposal argues it collected the garbage under the terms of the unapproved emergency no-bid contract and should be paid for the work.  The city owes $1,616,070 to the plaintiff.  The complaint accuses the city of unjust enrichment.  

The company asks the court to award $1,616,070, interest of 1.5% per month until payment made, and attorney's fees. 

The City Council filed a motion to intervene on July 29, arguing the City Council and Mayor have competing interests.  The Council said it had an interest in the case since it did not approve a "valid contract" with Richard's Disposal, thus no contract was not spread upon the minutes as required by law.  The motion states: 

 There are competing positions between the Mayor and the City Council, as evidenced by legal disputes in the Circuit and Chancery Courts of Hinds County, Mississippi, that could impair the City Council’s interest in this dispute if it is not allowed to intervene and defend its position in this action.

However, the Council did not stop with a motion to intervene but filed a crossclaim against Mayor Lumumba.  The crossclaim states: 

IT IS FURTHER REQUESTED respectfully that this Court grant the City Council’s Crossclaim against the Mayor as his actions resulted in the monetary loss to the Plaintiff and as the Mayor should be responsible for making the Plaintiff whole. It is further respectfully requested that this Court find that the Mayor committed Civil Conspiracy which resulted in the damage claimed by the Plaintiff.