Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION ESTATE OF JADA BRIGHT; and ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF JADA BRIGHT VERSUS PLAINTIFF CAUSE NO. 1:20cv150-HSO-JCG THE ESTATE OF SHELLEY E. ROSE; EAN HOLDINGS, LLC; ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY-SOUTH CENTRAL, LLC; ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC.; ELCO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMPANY; NATIONAL CAR RENTAL SYSTEM, INC.; LAUDERDALE COUNTY; JONES COUNTY; CITY OF ELLISVILLE; BEECH’S TOWING & RECOVERY LLC; ABC CORPORATIONS 1-5; AND JOHN DOES 1-5, DEFENDANT(S) ANSWER AND DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT LAUDERDALE COUNTY COMES NOW Defendant, Lauderdale County, Mississippi (“Lauderdale”), through counsel, and responds to Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Complaint”) as follows: FIRST DEFENSE Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Lauderdale and therefore should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SECOND DEFENSE Lauderdale possesses absolute immunity and/or sovereign immunity and/or judicial or quasijudicial immunity herein from suit and/or liability and/or damages. Page 1 of 17 Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 17 THIRD DEFENSE Lauderdale owed no legal duty to Jada Bright. FOURTH DEFENSE Lauderdale specifically raises the venue protections of Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-13(2), which states that venue under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act shall control in all actions filed against governmental entities notwithstanding that other Defendants which are not governmental entities may be joined in the suit, and notwithstanding the provisions of any other venue statute that otherwise would apply. Plaintiff has named three governmental entities: Lauderdale County, Jones County and City of Ellisville. Plaintiff’s claims against Lauderdale in this lawsuit should therefore be severed and in the unlikely event that this case is remanded, the lawsuit against Lauderdale transferred to Circuit Court of Lauderdale County. FIFTH DEFENSE In the alternative, the acts, omissions, negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and willful and intentional conduct of Shelley E. Rose solely and proximately caused the alleged accident and resulting death of Jada Bright. SIXTH DEFENSE Lauderdale specifically raises that its officers and employees did not act in “reckless disregard” for the safety and well-being of Jada Bright, entitling Lauderdale to immunity under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(c). SEVENTH DEFENSE Lauderdale specifically raises that its officers and employees did not maliciously or with an arbitrary and capricious nature either in the arrest of Shelley E. Rose or by not holding her indefinitely without bond, entitling Lauderdale to immunity under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(h). Page 2 of 17 Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 3 of 17 EIGHTH DEFENSE Lauderdale raises that its officers and employees acted in a judicial capacity regarding the Justice Court Judge’s setting of bond and acceptance of payment of the bond for release of Shelley E. Rose on her DUI charge, entitling Lauderdale County to immunity under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(a). NINTH DEFENSE Lauderdale specifically raises that its officers and employees relied upon statutes in support of the arrest, detention, setting of bond, and release of Shelley E. Rose on her DUI charge, entitling Lauderdale County to immunity under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(b). TENTH DEFENSE Lauderdale specifically raises that its officers and employees exercised and performed discretionary functions with regard to the arrest, detention, and release of Shelley E. Rose on her DUI charge, entitling Lauderdale County to immunity under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(d). ELEVENTH DEFENSE Lauderdale did not proximately cause the accident and resulting death of Jada Bright. TWELFTH DEFENSE The negligence of others, named and unnamed, solely and proximately caused the alleged accident and resulting death of Jada Bright. THIRTEENTH DEFENSE Though Lauderdale bears no fault, and proximate cause is absent, Lauderdale raises the apportionment of fault provisions of Miss. Code Ann. § 85-5-7. FOURTEENTH DEFENSE Lauderdale did not breach any alleged duty owed to the Plaintiff, nor did it violate any Page 3 of 17 Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 4 of 17 right or privilege of the Plaintiff, and therefore, is not liable in damages. FIFTEENTH DEFENSE Lauderdale committed no act or omission which caused any injury, damage, or deprivation to the Plaintiff and therefore is not liable in damages. SIXTEENTH DEFENSE As a matter of law, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief from Lauderdale. SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE At all times, Lauderdale officers and employees acted in good faith and pursuant to a reasonable law enforcement interest toward Plaintiff; Lauderdale is, therefore, immune from suit. EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE Lauderdale is entitled to all rights, immunities and privileges contained in the Mississippi Tort Claims Act which is found at § 11-46-1, et. seq. of the Mississippi Code, including, but not limited to, all exemptions from liability set forth in said Act, the notice of claim requirement set forth in said Act, the venue provisions of said Act, the limitations on liability set forth in said Act, as well as the fact that Plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial pursuant to said Act. NINETEENTH DEFENSE At all times, the actions of Lauderdale’s officers and employees were in compliance with and in furtherance of compelling state interests and proper law enforcement procedures. TWENTIETH DEFENSE It is denied that the Plaintiff was deprived of any right or privilege guaranteed to her under the Laws of the State of Mississippi, as a result of any act of Lauderdale, or its officers and employees. Therefore, each and every allegation of the Complaint to the contrary is denied. Page 4 of 17 Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 5 of 17 TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE The Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous and should therefore be dismissed. TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE In the alternative, Lauderdale is entitled to, and pleads, the defense of good faith immunity. TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE Plaintiff’s suit against Lauderdale is filed without substantial justification, entitling Lauderdale to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees for defending this action under M.R.C.P. 11 and the Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-55-5. TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE Plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice pursuant to Miss. Cod Ann. § 11-46-1 et seq. Therefore, her state claims against Lauderdale are barred. TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE Alternatively, Plaintiff failed to mitigate her alleged injuries, and her injuries and damages, respectively, if any, would not have occurred, or have been as severe, had Plaintiff mitigated such alleged damages. Lauderdale affirmatively pleads that, to the extent Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages, she is barred from recovery. TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE Alternatively, the actions of others over whom Lauderdale has no control and for whose acts and omissions Lauderdale is not responsible, combined to constitute the sole proximate cause or a contributing cause of the accident and resulting death of Jada Bright; Lauderdale therefore denies liability to include for any alleged injuries suffered by Plaintiff. Page 5 of 17 Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 6 of 17 TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE Alternatively, the accident in question and any alleged injuries resulted from the acts or omissions of persons or entities other than Lauderdale for which Lauderdale is in no way responsible or liable. Alternatively, said acts or omissions of persons or entities other than Lauderdale constitutes an independent, superseding cause for which Lauderdale is in no way responsible or liable. TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE In the alternative, Lauderdale affirmatively asserts that the Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by contributory negligence and/or comparative fault. TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statue of limitations. THIRTIETH DEFENSE At all times, Lauderdale and its officers and employees acted reasonably and in good faith reliance upon then existing law and are therefore entitled to qualified and/or absolute and/or judicial or quasi-judicial immunity for any and claims alleged herein. THIRTY-FIRST DEFENSE Lauderdale is immune from liability as to each and every alleged state law claim pursuant to the exemptions set forth in MISS. CODE ANN. § 11-46-9, as amended, including but not limited § 11-46-9(1)(a),(b)(c),(d),(f),(j), of the Mississippi Code. THIRTY-SECOND DEFENSE Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to, the one year statute of limitations pursuant to MISS. CODE ANN. § 15-1-35, entitled “Actions for Certain Torts.” Page 6 of 17 Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 7 of 17 THIRTY-THIRD DEFENSE Plaintiff is barred from recovering from Lauderdale, to the extent the facts reveal that she was engaged in illegal activity at the time of the incident. THIRTY-FOURTH DEFENSE Lauderdale affirmatively pleads that this case against Lauderdale was filed in an improper venue in state court in violation of Mississippi Code § 11-46-13(2) and therefore has been removed to an improper venue in federal court. THIRTY-FIFTH DEFENSE Lauderdale reserves the right to affirmatively plead any and all other defenses and affirmative defenses available to them which may become applicable through discovery and during the trial of this cause. THIRTY-SIXTH DEFENSE Lauderdale invokes the procedural and substantive aspects of § 11-1-65 of the Mississippi Code. THIRTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE The imposition of punitive and several liability for punitive damages in this case would violate the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 14 of the Mississippi Constitution. THIRTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE The imposition of punitive damages in this case would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Mississippi Constitution. THIRTY-NINTH DEFENSE The imposition of punitive damages in this case would violate the First Amendment to Page 7 of 17 Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 8 of 17 the United States Constitution. FORTIETH DEFENSE The Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is barred as a matter of law. FORTY-FIRST DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. FORTY-SECOND DEFENSE The imposition of punitive damages in this case in the absence of a showing of malicious intent to cause harm to the Plaintiff would violate the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 14 of the Mississippi Constitution. FORTY-THIRD DEFENSE To the extent it seeks punitive damages, the Complaint violates Sections Sixteen and Seventeen of the Mississippi Constitution. FORTY-FOURTH DEFENSE The imposition of punitive damages in this case would violate the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 14 of the Mississippi Constitution because the standards of liability for punitive damages in Mississippi are unduly vague and subjective, and permit retroactive, random, arbitrary and capricious punishment that serves no legitimate governmental interest. FORTY-FIFTH DEFENSE The imposition of punitive damages in this case would violate the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 14 of the Mississippi Constitution because the Mississippi standards for determining the amount of the Page 8 of 17 Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 9 of 17 award are unduly vague and subjective, and permit arbitrary, capricious, excessive and disproportionate punishment that serves no legitimate governmental interest. FORTY-SIXTH DEFENSE The imposition of punitive damages in this case in the absence of the procedural safeguards accorded to Lauderdale subject to punishment in criminal proceedings, including a reasonable doubt standard of proof, would violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. FORTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages, attorney’s fees, interest, and costs are barred by Section 11-46-15(2) of the Mississippi Code. FORTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE The facts not having been fully developed, the Defendants affirmatively plead the following affirmative defenses: insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process. The Plaintiff’s Complaint should therefore be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FORTY-NINTH DEFENSE Lauderdale now answers the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint, paragraph by paragraph, as follows: The first unnumbered paragraph of the Complaint appears to require no response from Lauderdale. However, to the extent that a response is required, Lauderdale denies the Plaintiff’s allegations to the extent that the Plaintiff seeks to impose liability upon Lauderdale. 1. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations Page 9 of 17 Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 10 of 17 contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 2. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 3. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 4. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint. 5. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 6. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 7. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 8. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 12. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 13. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint. Page 10 of 17 Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 11 of 17 14. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint. 15. Denied. 16. Denied. 17. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint. 18. Admitted, to include that at approximately 12:27 hours on November 20, 2018, the responding officers (Sgt. Andy Matuszewski and LT Marissa Combs) first encountered Shelley Rose while sitting she was seated in the driver’s seat of a Dodge van in the parking lot of the subject TA truck stop. Lauderdale denies that the TA truck stop is located within the City of Meridian, Mississippi. It is also admitted that Shelley Rose admitted to the responding officers she had struck a pole in the truck stop parking lot. 19. Admitted, except that Lauderdale is unable to either admit or deny whether the damage to the vehicle was “significant”. 20. Admitted, except that Sgt. Andy Matuszewski commented to Ms. Rose upon initial questioning on the scene that he was concerned about her slurred speech and that some types of medication could affect a person’s cognitive abilities. It is admitted that Ms. Rose informed Sgt. Matuszewski that she was under a doctor’s care for “mental problems”, “took medication for that”, and had taken her medications that day as she was supposed to, but that she “was late”; It is denied that Ms. Rose informed the officers specifically which medications she had taken. It is admitted that the officers took possession of Ms. Rose’s medication list and bag of medication at the truck stop, and that LT Marissa Combs later noted in her incident report that some of the medications on Ms. Rose’s list were of the type that should not be mixed with Page 11 of 17 Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 12 of 17 alcohol or taken while operating heavy machinery. It is denied that LT Combs attempted to have Ms. Rose perform sobriety tests; the tests were administered by Sgt. Matuszewski. 21. Admitted. 22. Denied as phrased, except that Ms. Rose stated she had unspecified mental conditions. It is admitted that on November 20, 2018, the responding officers arrived at Ms. Rose’s location at the TA Truck stop at 12:27 p.m., had Ms. Rose “under control” at 12:40 p.m., formally arrested her at 1:40 p.m. (1340 hours), and that she was booked into the Lauderdale County Detention Facility (“the jail”) at 2:01 p.m. (1401 hours). 23. Admitted. 24. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, except that Sgt. Matuszewski did contact Enterprise and advised that Ms. Rose had been arrested for DUI. Lauderdale states affirmatively that the vehicle being operated by Ms. Rose on November 20, 2018 was not impounded, but was left in the parking lot of the TA truck stop after being moved by LT Combs (with Ms. Rose’s permission) to a location where the truck stop would not have it towed. 25. Admitted. 26. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 27. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 28. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 29. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations Page 12 of 17 Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 13 of 17 contained in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 30. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint. 31. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint. 32. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint. 33. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint. 34. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint. 35. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint. 36. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint. 37. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint. 38. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint. 39. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint. 40. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint. Page 13 of 17 Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 14 of 17 41. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint. 42. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint. 43. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint. 44. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint. 45. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint. 46. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint. 47. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint. 48. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint. 49. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint. 50. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint. 51. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint. 52. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations Page 14 of 17 Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 15 of 17 contained in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint. 53. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint, except that Sgt. Matuszewski called Enterprise on November 20, 2018 to report that Ms. Rose had been arrested for DUI in Lauderdale County. 54. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint. 55. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint. 56. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint. 57. Lauderdale incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-56 of the Complaint. 58. Denied. 59. Denied including all subparagraphs of paragraph 59. 60. Denied. 61. Lauderdale incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-60 of the Complaint. 62. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint. 63. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint. 64. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint. 65. Lauderdale incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-64 of the Complaint. 66. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations Page 15 of 17 Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 16 of 17 contained in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint. 67. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint. 68. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint. 69. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 69 of the Complaint. 70. Lauderdale is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint. 71. Lauderdale incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-70 of the Complaint. 72. Denied. 73. Denied. 74. Denied including all subparagraphs of paragraph 74 of the Complaint. Lauderdale further denies the allegations contained in therefore paragraph following Paragraph 74 of the Complaint. Furthermore, Lauderdale denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to any relief or damages from it as requested in the Complaint, or any relief or damages from it whatsoever. NOW, having fully answered the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint and having set forth its defenses thereto, Lauderdale moves this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice at Plaintiff’s cost, and for an award of reasonable attorney fees and expenses assessed to the Plaintiff. This the 30th day of April, 2020. Page 16 of 17 Case 1:20-cv-00150-HSO-JCG Document 5 Filed 04/30/20 Page 17 of 17 Respectfully submitted, LAUDERDALE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, Defendant BY: /s/ Lee Thaggard LEE THAGGARD (MSB #9442) BARRY, THAGGARD & MAY, LLP Post Office Box 2009 Meridian, MS 39302-2009 (601) 693-2393 thaggard@btmlegal.com Attorney for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned attorney, do hereby certify that on this date I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the ECF system, which provided notice of such filing to: Mary Lee Holmes Marcus A. McLelland Cory Ferraez Holmes, McLelland, Ferraez, PLLC 601 East Central Avenue Petal, MS 39465 Attorney for Plaintiff Scott Timothy Ellzey Phelps Dunbar, LLP 2602 13th Street, Suite 300 Gulfport, MS 39501 Attorney for EAN Holdings, LLC, Enterprise Leasing Company-South Central, LLC, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., ELCO Administrative Services Company, National Car Rental System, Inc. and I hereby certify that I have served by first class mail postage prepaid, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Answer to the following: L. Clark Hicks, Jr. Hicks Law Firm, PLLC 211 South 29th Avenue, Suite 201 Post Office Box 18350 Hattiesburg, MS 39404-8350 Attorney for Defendant, City of Ellisville C. Maison Heidelberg Watson Heidelberg, PLLC Post Office Box 23546 Jackson, MS 39225-3546 Attorney for Defendant, Beech’s Towing & Recovery LLC THIS the 30th day of April, 2020. /s/Lee Thaggard LEE THAGGARD Page 17 of 17