Houston Nutt Ole Miss File Watermarked

Case: 3:17-cv-00130-NBB-RP Doc #: 15 Filed: 07/27/17 1 of 2 PageID #: 71
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
HOUSTON DALE NUTT,JR. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-130-NBB-RP
OLE MISS ATHLETICS FOUNDATION,
m
THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI, and
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR
o
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING DEFENDANTS
a .c
OLE MISS ATHLETICS FOUNDATION'S JOINDER IN MOTION TO
ay
DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BY
DEFENDANTS UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI AND
MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF STATE
l
ba
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING
Defendant Ole Miss Athletics Foundation joins in and adopts the Federal
m
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support filed by the
ja
University of Mississippi and Mississippi Board of Trustees of State Institutions of

n
so
Higher Learning and requests that the Court dismiss this action in its entirety.
DATED: July 27, 2017.

ck
Respectfully submitted,
Ja
OLE MISS ATHLETICS FOUNDATION
By: /s/ R. David Kaufman

One of Its Attorneys
02726596
OF COUNSEL:
R. David Kaufman(MS Bar No. 3526)

John E. Wade(MS Bar No. 6850)
R. Lane Bobo(MS Bar No. 105263)
BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES,PLLC
The Pinnacle Building, Suite 100
190 East Capitol Street(39201)
Post Office Drawer 119
om
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Telephone: (601)948-3101
Facsimile: (601) 960-6902
.c
dkaufman@brunini.com
jwade@brunini.com
ya
lbobo@brunini.com
la
ba
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
m
I, R. David Kaufman, hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing

ja
document with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which sent notification
on
of such filing to all counsel of record.

s
DATED: July 27, 2017.

ck
/s/ R. David Kaufman

R. David Kaufman
Ja
02726596
INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
FORTHENORTHERNDISTRICTOFMISSISSIPPI
OXFORDDIVISION
HOUSTONDALENUTT,JR. PLAINTIFF
V. CivilActionNo.3:17CV130NBBRP
THEUNIVERSITYOFMISSISSIPPI,ETAL. DEFENDANTS
BRIEFINSUPPORTOFMOTIONTODISMISSFORLACKOFSUBJECTMATTER
m
JURISDICTIONBYDEFENDANTSUNIVERSITYOFMISSISSIPPIAND
MISSISSIPPIBOARDOFTRUSTEESOFSTATEINSTITUTIONSOFHIGHERLEARNING
co

ThisCourtplainlylackssubjectmatterjurisdictionoverthisaction.HoustonNutts
a.
ComplaintmakesclaimssolelyunderMississippilaw.1Nuttmakesnofederallawclaimand
ay
insteadtriestoinvokethisCourtsjudicialauthoritybasedoncompletediversityofcitizenship.2
l
ba
HeclaimsTexasashishomeandallegesthattheUniversityofMississippiandtheIHLBoardare
citizensofMississippi.3Over100yearsago,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtconcludedthat
am
[a]Stateisnotacitizenfordiversityjurisdictionpurposes.4Thesameruleappliestothe
nj
UniversityandtheIHLBoardasarmsoftheState.Completediversityofcitizenshiptherefore
so
doesnotexistbetweenNuttandDefendants.Forthatreason,thisCourtlackstheauthorityto
adjudicatethisaction.Evenifthatauthorityexisted,theEleventhAmendmenttotheUnited
ck
StatesConstitutionbarsNuttsclaimsagainsttheUniversityandtheIHLBoard.ThisCourt
Ja
shouldsummarilydismissthisaction.
1
Id.,5558.
2
Id.,6.Nutterroneouslyreferences28U.S.C.1332(b)insteadof1332(a)(1).
3
Id.,1,2and4.
4
PostalTel.CableCo.v.Alabama,155U.S.482,487(1894).
STANDARDSUBJECTMATTERJURISDICTION
Federalcourtsarecourtsoflimitedjurisdiction,possessingonlythatpower
authorizedbyConstitutionandstatute.5Rule12(b)(1)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure
providesaprocesstodetermineafederalcourtsauthoritytoresolveaparticulardispute.
Whentheconstitutionalorstatutorypowertoadjudicatedoesnotexist,afederalcourtshould
dismisstheaction.6Similarly,anassertionofEleventhAmendmentimmunitychallengesthe
m
courtssubjectmatterjurisdictionunderRule12(b)(1).7Thepartyassertingjurisdictionhasthe
co
burdentoestablishjurisdiction.8
a.
ARGUMENT
I.
ay
TheUniversityandtheIHLBoardarenotcitizensofanystate.
Diversityofcitizenshipdoesnotexist.
l
ba
Nuttassertssubjectmatterjurisdictionbasedoncompletediversityofcitizenship
am
betweenthePlaintiffandtheDefendants....9Nutt(acitizenofTexas)hassuedthe
Foundation(acitizenofMississippi)andtwopublicentitiestheUniversityandtheIHLBoard.
nj
TheUniversityandtheIHLBoardarearmsoftheStateofMississippi,andcompletediversityof
so
citizenshipdoesnotexist.ThisCourtlacksjudicialauthorityoverandshoulddismissthisaction.
ck
Federalcourtshaveoriginaljurisdictionoverdisputesifthematterincontroversy
Ja
exceeds$75,000andisbetweencitizensofdifferentStates.10Jurisdictionbasedondiversityof
5
Gunnv.Minton,568U.S.251,256(2013)(quotingKokkonenv.GuardianLifeIns.Co.ofAmerica,511
U.S.375,377(1994)).
6
HomeBuildersAssn,Inc.v.CityofMadison,Miss.,143F.3d1006,1010(5thCir.1998).
7
Smithv.LefloreCnty.,4:14cv127,2015U.S.Dist.LEXIS128533at*3,2015WL5655830(N.D.Miss.
September24,2015).
8
Rammingv.U.S.,281F.3d158,161(5thCir.2001).
9
Complaint,6.
10
28U.S.C.1332(a)(1).
2
citizenshiprequirescompletediversitybetweenallplaintiffsandalldefendants.11However,
[i]tiswellestablishedthatastateisnotacitizenforpurposesofdiversityjurisdiction.12The
sameruleappliesifthepartyisastateagencyoperatingasanalteregoofthestate.13To
determinealteregostatus,courtsemploythesameanalysisusedtodetermineEleventh
Amendmentimmunity.14Ifapartyisastatesalterego,diversityjurisdictiondoesnotexist.
LikeotherMississippipublicuniversities,theUniversityofMississippiisanarmofthe
m
StateofMississippiimmunefromsuitundertheEleventhAmendment.15Thesameistruefor
co
theIHLBoard.16Forthisreason,theUniversityandtheIHLBoardarealteregosoftheStateand
a.
notcitizensfordiversityjurisdictionpurposes.
ay
NuttallegeddiversityjurisdictionasthelonebasisforfilinghisactioninthisCourt.
l
ba
Diversityofcitizenshipdoesnotexist,andthisCourtlacksjudicialauthorityoverthisdispute.
ThisCourtshoulddismissthisaction.
am
II. TheEleventhAmendmenttotheU.S.ConstitutionbarsNuttsclaims
againsttheUniversityandtheIHLBoard.
nj
TheJudicialpoweroftheUnitedStatesshallnotbeconstruedtoextend
so
toanysuitinlaworequity,commencedorprosecutedagainstoneofthe
ck
11
Strawbridgev.Curtis,7U.S.(3Cranch)267(1806).
12
Tradigain,Inc.v.Miss.St.PortAuth.,701F.2d1131,1132(5thCir.1983)(citingMoorv.AlamedaCnty.,
Ja
411U.S.693,717(1973));Hoodv.AstraZenecaPharm.,LP,744F.Supp.2d590,597(N.D.Miss.2010)
(citingStonev.SouthCarolina,117U.S.430,433(1886))([A]statecannotinthenatureofthings,bea
citizenofanystate.).
13
Tradigain,701F.2dat1132.
14
Id.;seealsoUniv.ofSouthAl.v.AmericanTobaccoCo.,168F.3d405,41112(11thCir.1999)(finding
UniversityofSouthAlabamanotcitizenfordiversityjurisdictionpurposes);Abdullav.Univ.ofArk.
LittleRock,930F.Supp.2d138,14041(D.D.C.2013)(holdingthat,becauseEleventhAmendment
immunityapplied,UniversityofArkansasalsonotcitizenfordiversityjurisdictionpurposes).
15
Kermodev.Univ.ofMiss.Med.Ctr.,496Fed.Appx.483,488(5thCir.2010);Wiggintonv.Universityof
Mississippi,3:15cv93,2016WL5745694at*3(N.D.Miss.Sept.30,2016).
16
Jagnandanv.Giles,538F.2d1166,117376(5thCir.1976);YulChuv.Miss.St.Univ.,901F.Supp.2d
761,772(N.D.Miss.2012).
3
UnitedStatesbyCitizensofanotherState,orbyCitizensorSubjectsof
anyForeignState.17

ItisaxiomaticthatabsentwaiverbytheStateorvalidcongressionaloverride,the
EleventhAmendmentbarsadamagesactionagainstaStateinfederalcourt.18Thisfar
reachingimmunitybarsallactionsagainstastateanditsdepartments,whethertherelief
soughtisinjunctive,declaratoryormonetary.19Asalreadydiscussed,theUniversityandtheIHL
m
Boardarearmsofthestate.Forthatreason,theyareimmunefromsuitundertheEleventh
co
Amendment.20Congresshasnotabrogatedthisimmunityforcommonlawclaimsforbreachof
contractorbreachofthedutyofgoodfaithandfairdealing.TheMississippilegislaturehas
a.
ay
specificallypreservedEleventhAmendmentimmunitywhenitmadealimitedwaiverof
sovereignimmunityundertheMississippiTortClaimsAct.21
l
ba
ThisCourtlacksjurisdictionovertheclaimsagainsttheUniversityandtheIHLBoard.
am
CONCLUSION
Nutthasattemptedtocreatejurisdictionwherenoneexistsbymisrepresentingthe
nj
citizenshipoftheUniversityofMississippiandtheIHLBoard.Asacourtoflimitedjurisdiction,
so
thisCourtshoulddismissthisactioninitsentirety.Alternatively,thisCourtshoulddismissthe
ck
claimsagainsttheUniversityandtheIHLBoardbasedontheirEleventhAmendmentimmunity.
Ja
17
U.S.Const.amend.XI.
18
Wigginton,2016WL5745694at*3(citingKentuckyv.Graham,473U.S.159,169(1985)).
19
Carpenterv.Miss.ValleySt.Univ.,807F.Supp.2d570,580(N.D.Miss.2011)(citingPennhurstSt.Sch.
&Hosp.v.Halderman,465U.S.89,10001(1984)).
20
Arkansasspublicuniversitieshavethesameimmunity,asdopublicuniversitiesacrossthecountry.
Emritv.Univ.ofArk.,5:16cv5326,2017U.S.Dist.LEXIS19800at**34(W.D.Ark.Feb.13,2017);
InfoMath,Inc.v.Univ.ofArk.,633F.Supp.2d674,67778n.13(E.D.Ark.2007).
21
Miss.CodeAnn.11465(4)(Nothingcontainedinthischaptershallbeconstruedtowaivethe
immunityofthestatefromsuitinfederalcourtguaranteedbytheEleventhAmendmenttothe
ConstitutionoftheUnitedStates.);seealsoSmith,2015U.S.Dist.LEXIS128533at**45.
4
THIS,the27thdayofJuly,2017.
Respectfullysubmitted,
UNIVERSITYOFMISSISSIPPIANDMISSISSIPPIBOARDOF
TRUSTEESOFSTATEINSTITUTIONSOFHIGHERLEARNING

/s/J.CalMayo,Jr.
J.CalMayo,Jr.(MBNo.8492)
PaulB.Watkins,Jr.(MBNo.102348)
MayoMallettePLLC
m
PostOfficeBox1456
Oxford,Mississippi38655
co
Tel:(662)2360055
cmayo@mayomallette.com
a.
pwatkins@mayomallette.com

ay
/s/PaulH.Stephenson,III
PaulH.Stephenson,III
Watkins&EagerPLLC(MBNo.7864)
l
ba
PostOfficeBox650
Jackson,Mississippi39205
Tel:(601)9651900
am
pstephenson@watkinseager.com

ATTORNEYSFORTHESEDEFENDANTS
nj

so
ck
Ja
5
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
I,J.CalMayo,Jr.,oneoftheattorneysforDefendantsUniversityofMississippiand
MississippiBoardofTrusteesofStateInstitutionsofHigherLearning,docertifythatIhave
electronicallyfiledthisdocumentintheECFsystemwiththeClerkoftheCourtwhichsent
notificationofthefilingtoallattorneysofrecord.
m
/s/J.CalMayo,Jr.
co
J.CALMAYO,JR.
a.
l ay
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
6
INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
FORTHENORTHERNDISTRICTOFMISSISSIPPI
OXFORDDIVISION
HOUSTONDALENUTT,JR. PLAINTIFF
V. CivilActionNo.3:17CV130NBBRP
THEUNIVERSITYOFMISSISSIPPI,ETAL. DEFENDANTS
MOTIONTODISMISSFORLACKOFSUBJECTMATTERJURISDICTION
m
BYDEFENDANTSUNIVERSITYOFMISSISSIPPIANDMISSISSIPPI
BOARDOFTRUSTEESOFSTATEINSTITUTIONSOFHIGHERLEARNING
co

UnderF.R.C.P.12(b)(1),DefendantstheUniversityofMississippiandtheMississippi
a.
BoardofTrusteesofStateInstitutionsofHigherLearningmovetheCourttodismissthisaction
ay
forlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.Insupport,Defendantsstate:
l
ba
1. AthresholddeterminationinanynewactionistheCourtssubjectmatter
jurisdiction.Absentjurisdiction,theCourtlacksthepowertoadjudicatethedispute.Subject
am
matterjurisdictioncannotbebestowedontheCourtbyagreementoftheparties.Jurisdiction
nj
mustbefoundtoexistundertheU.S.Constitutionandapplicablefederalstatutes.
so
2. PlaintiffNuttallegesMississippicommonlawclaimsandfederaljurisdiction
under28U.S.C.1332.Section1332(a)(1)grantsfederalcourtsoriginaljurisdictionover
ck
disputesifthecontroversyexceeds$75,000invalueandisbetweencitizensofdifferentStates.
Ja
PlaintiffNuttincorrectlyallegesthereiscompletediversityofcitizenshipbetweenthePlaintiff
andtheDefendants;thatis,heerroneouslyallegesthepartiesarecitizensofdifferentStates.
3. Intheteethofwellestablishedcontrollinglaw,PlaintiffNuttimproperlyalleges
theUniversityandtheIHLBoardarecitizensoftheStateofMississippiforpurposesofdiversity
jurisdiction.Instead,theyarearmsoftheState,and,assuch,arenotcitizensofanystatefor
diversityofcitizenshippurposes.ThiscontroversybetweenPlaintiffandDefendantsis
thereforenotacontroversybetweencitizensofdifferentStates.
4. Ithaslongbeenthelawthatcompletediversityofcitizenshipmustexist
betweenallplaintiffsandalldefendantsfordiversityjurisdictiontoexistunderSection
1332(a)(1).BecausetheUniversityandtheIHLBoardarenotcitizensoftheStateofMississippi
oranystate,completediversityofcitizenshipdoesnotexist.Consequently,thisCourtmust
m
dismissthisactionduetothelackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.
co
5. Further,PlaintiffNuttsclaimsagainsttheUniversityandtheIHLBoardare
a.
barredbytheEleventhAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution.Therefore,theCourtlackssubject
ay
matterjurisdictionovertheclaimsagainsttheUniversityandtheIHLBoard.
l
ba
WHEREFORE,PREMISESCONSIDERED,DefendantstheUniversityofMississippiandthe
MississippiBoardofTrusteesofStateInstitutionsofHigherLearningrequestthatthisCourt
am
dismissthisaction.Defendantsrequestanyotherreliefappropriateunderthecircumstances.
nj
so
Respectfullysubmitted,
UNIVERSITYOFMISSISSIPPIANDMISSISSIPPIBOARDOF
ck
TRUSTEESOFSTATEINSTITUTIONSOFHIGHERLEARNING

Ja
/s/J.CalMayo,Jr.
J.CalMayo,Jr.(MBNo.8492)
PaulB.Watkins,Jr.(MBNo.102348)
MayoMallettePLLC
PostOfficeBox1456
Oxford,Mississippi38655
Tel:(662)2360055
cmayo@mayomallette.com
pwatkins@mayomallette.com

2
/s/PaulH.Stephenson,III
PaulH.Stephenson,III
Watkins&EagerPLLC(MBNo.7864)
PostOfficeBox650
Jackson,Mississippi39205
Tel:(601)9651900
pstephenson@watkinseager.com

ATTORNEYSFORTHESEDEFENDANTS

m
co
a.
l ay
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
3
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
I,J.CalMayo,Jr.,oneoftheattorneysforDefendants,docertifythatIhave
electronicallyfiledthisdocumentintheECFsystemwiththeClerkoftheCourtwhichsent
notificationofthefilingtoallattorneysofrecord.
/s/J.CalMayo,Jr.
m
J.CALMAYO,JR.
co
a.
l ay
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
HOUSTON DALE NUTT, JR. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS 3:17-CV-130-NBB-RP
NO.: _________________
OLE MISS ATHLETICS FOUNDATION,

THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI, and
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING DEFENDANTS
m
_____________________________________________________________________________
co
COMPLAINT
a.
(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
_____________________________________________________________________________
l ay
Comes Now, the Plaintiff, Houston Dale Nutt, Jr., by and through undersigned counsel,
and files this complaint against the Defendants, Ole Miss Athletics Foundation, The University of
ba
Mississippi, and the Board of Trustees for Institutions of Higher Learning, and would show unto
am
the court as follows:
PARTIES
nj
1. Plaintiff, Houston Dale Nutt, Jr. (Coach Nutt), is a citizen of the State of Texas.
so
From 2008 to 2011, Coach Nutt was the head football coach at the University of Mississippi (Ole
ck
Miss). As is customary with departing college football coaches, on November 26, 2011, Coach
Ja
Nutt and the Defendants entered into a Severance Agreement. Section 8 of the Severance
Agreement prohibits the Defendants from making any statement relative to Coach Nutts tenure
at Ole Miss that may damage or harm his reputation at a football coach. In keeping with Coach
Nutts contractual obligation not to disclose the specifics of the Severance Agreement, a fully-
executed copy of the Agreement, marked as Exhibit A, has been contemporaneously filed under
seal.
1
2. Ole Miss competes in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) of the National
Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) and in the Western Division of the Southeastern
Conference (SEC). As a member institution of the NCAA and the SEC, Ole Miss and the
members of its Athletics Department are subject to the Bylaws and Rules of the NCAA and the
SEC. The NCAA separates its schools by divisions. As a Division 1 school, Ole Miss is in the
group of colleges with the largest athletics departments and whose sports teams generate the most
m
revenues. For purposes of federal jurisdiction in this civil action, Ole Miss is deemed to be a citizen
co
of the State of Mississippi. As an institution of the State of Mississippi, Ole Miss may be served
a.
with process through the Office of the Attorney General, The Honorable Jim Hood, at 550 High
Street, Suite 1200, Jackson, Mississippi 39201.
3.
ay
The Ole Miss Athletics Foundation (OMAF), formerly known as the UMAA
l
ba
Foundation, is a signatory to the Severance Agreement. As a non-profit Mississippi corporation
am
and for purposes of federal jurisdiction in this civil action, the Ole Miss Athletics Foundation is
deemed to be a citizen of the State of Mississippi. It may be served with process through its
nj
registered agent, Keith Carter, at 201 Coliseum Drive, University, Mississippi 38677.
so
4. The Institutions of Higher Learning, through its Board of Trustees, is a signatory to

ck
the Severance Agreement. The Board of Trustees is the constitutional governing body of the State
Institutions of Higher Learning. For purposes of federal jurisdiction in this civil action, the Board
Ja
of Trustees for Institutions of Higher Learning is deemed to be a citizen of the State of Mississippi.
It may be served with process through the Office of the Attorney General, The Honorable Jim
Hood, at 550 High Street, Suite 1200, Jackson, Mississippi 39201.
5. The term Control Group appears in the Severance Agreement. In response to a
request for information made pursuant to the Mississippi Public Records Act, Ole Miss informed
2
Coach Nutts undersigned counsel that, with respect to the Severance Agreement, the Control
Group included:
1. The Chancellor of the University of Mississippi;
2. The Director of Athletics;
3. The Senior Executive Athletics Director;
4. The Executive Associate Athletics Director;
m
5. The General Counsel for the University of Mississippi;
co
6. The Executive Director of the OMAF; and
a.
7. The members of the OMAF Board of Governors.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.
ay
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this civil action as there is complete
l
ba
diversity of citizenship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and the amount in controversy
am
exceeds the sum of $75,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332 (b).
7. Pursuant to the contractual agreement of the parties, and because this case also
nj
meets the criteria set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1) and (2), venue is proper in the Oxford Division
so
of the Northern District of Mississippi.

ck
FACTS
BACKGROUND
Ja
8. As stated on the Ole Miss website, Houston Nutt, who was introduced as the
school's 36th head coach on Nov. 28, 2007, served as Ole Miss' head coach from 2008-2011 and
guided the Rebels to back-to-back Cotton Bowl wins in 2009 and 10. After guiding Arkansas to
three SEC Western Division titles and eight bowl berths in his decade in Fayetteville, Nutt
3
immediately reversed the Rebels' fortunes and guided Ole Miss to success not experienced in
Oxford in a half century. Coach Nutt left Ole Miss in good standing on November 26, 2011.
9. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Ross Bjork (AD Bjork) was the Ole Miss
Director of Athletics (AD) and reported to the Chancellor. AD Bjork was promoted to the
position of Vice Chancellor for Intercollegiate Athletics in October 2016.
10. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Kyle Campbell (Campbell) oversaw the
m
Ole Miss Athletics Communications Department and reported to AD Bjork. Campbell first held
co
the title of Assistant Athletics Director and was promoted to Associate AD in November 2015.
a.
11. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Hugh Freeze (Coach Freeze) was Ole
Misss head football coach and reported to AD Bjork. Coach Freeze was first hired by Ole Miss
ay
in 2005 when he joined Coach Ed Orgerons staff as the Associate Athletics Director for external
l
ba
affairs. Shortly thereafter, the NCAA discovered that Coach Freeze had participated in telephone
am
calls with four Memphis-area prospects in violation of the NCAAs recruiting rules. As a result of
these recruiting violations, Coach Freeze received a letter of admonishment. In 2006, Coach
nj
Freeze became Ole Misss tight ends coach and recruiting coordinator. He held that position until
so
Coach Orgeron was replaced by Coach Nutt in November 2007. Coach Freeze returned to Ole
ck
Miss as the head football coach on December 5, 2011 and still holds that position.
The NCAA Investigation of the Ole Miss Football Program and the Notice of Allegations
Ja
12. This action for breach of contract arises from certain false and defamatory
statements made by and on behalf of the Defendants in connection with an NCAA investigation
of the Ole Miss football program. The NCAA investigation began in October 2012 with a focus
on potential rules violations related to the Ole Miss womens basketball team. In February 2013,
while the NCAAs investigation was widening to review potential violations in the Universitys
4
football program, Ole Miss signed the highest-ranked class of football recruits in the schools
history. The NCAA investigation continued through 2014 and widened further in 2015.
13. In keeping with the procedures of the NCAA following an investigation of potential
violations by a member institution, the NCAA enforcement staff prepared a 47-page Notice of
Allegations (NOA) that detailed the NCAAs findings. The NOA was addressed to Chancellor
Jeffrey Vitter ( Chancellor Vitter) and delivered to him on or before January 22, 2016. The NOA,
m
a copy of which appears on the official Ole Miss website, contains 10 references to Freeze.
co
Houston Nutts name does not appear anywhere in the 47-page document.
a.
14. On January 30, 2016, in its first public statement since receiving the NOA, Ole
Miss posted a statement online by AD Bjork, which included the following language: . . . and in
ay
football, with many of the allegations dating back to the former football staff in 2010 and the
l
ba
withholding and reinstatement process around Laremy Tunsil in fall of 2015. (emphasis added).
am
AD Bjork and other members of the Ole Miss Control Group approved the foregoing statement in
advance knowing that the statement was false and misleading.

nj
15. Based on further investigation conducted in 2016, the NCAA prepared and
so
delivered a 30-page amended NOA to Chancellor Vitter in early February 2017. The amended
ck
NOA, a copy of which appears on the official Ole Miss website, contains 48 references to Freeze.
Houston Nutts name does not appear anywhere in this 30-page document.
Ja
16. Consistent with the tactics it used to prevent journalists from seeing the first NOA,
Ole Miss declined multiple FOI requests for the amended NOA and did not release it to the public
until the University submitted its response in early June 2017.
17. On February 22, 2017, Ole Miss posted an online video presentation that included
statements by Chancellor Vitter, AD Bjork, and Coach Freeze about the NCAA investigation. In
5
the video and the accompanying transcript, AD Bjork falsely stated: Consistent with the NCAAs
very strict requirement of confidentiality in all investigative matters, we have not publicized any
information related to this investigation before today.
18. AD Bjork made this statement knowing it was false. Coach Freeze also knew that
AD Bjorks statement was untrue.
19. In fact, beginning in 2014, AD Bjork, Coach Freeze and Campbell had collectively
m
violated the NCAAs confidentiality requirements numerous times. For instance, AD Bjork knew
co
or was reckless in not knowing that between January 21 and 31, 2016, Coach Freeze had initiated
one-on-one conversations with numerous sports journalists 1 and at least four highly-rated
a.
recruiting prospects and that those conversations violated various policies of the NCAA, SEC, and
ay
the University, including the NCAAs rules on confidentiality.
l
ba
20. AD Bjork further knew that in each of the conversations referenced above, Coach
am
Freeze had knowingly lied to the journalists and recruiting prospects by saying that the NCAAs
investigation had little, if anything, to do with him or his coaching staff and was instead focused
nj
on alleged rules violations by Coach Nutts staff. In some of these conversations, Coach Freeze
so
falsely stated that most, if not all, of the NCAAs allegations involved Houston Nutt and his
ck
staff. At the time Coach Freeze made these statements, he was fully aware that they were patently
false, yet he continued to make such statements, severely damaging Coach Nutts reputation.
Ja
21. Of the 13 allegations in the initial NOA involving the football program, only two
of them allegedly occurred when Houston Nutt was the head football coach. Two more violations
alleged in the NOA related to alleged improper communications with witnesses and false and
1
Plaintiff refer to these journalists herein by pseudonyms, i.e., Journalist #1 through #7.
6
misleading statements by two former members of Coach Nutts staff. However, these alleged
violations occurred in 2013 and 2014, long after Coach Nutt had left Ole Miss. Thus, even if one
could interpret the NOA to mean that four of the alleged violations occurred when Coach Nutt was
at Ole Miss (which is undeniably false), 69% of the allegations in the NOA would have still
occurred on Coach Freezes watch. Not including the 2013-14 allegations (which would be two
years after Coach Nutt left Ole Miss), roughly 85% of the allegations violations occurred while
m
Coach Freeze was the head coach.
co
The Success and Support of its Football Program is one of Ole Misss Highest Priorities
a.
22. In his State of the University remarks on August 29, 2016, Chancellor Vitter
described the importance of Ole Miss athletics to the Universitys success:
l ay
Athletics is often called the front porch of a university. The integrity and
competitiveness of our athletics program has played a big role in elevating
ba
the Ole Miss name and brand to its strongest point in school history.
Through athletics, we capture the hearts of people in MS and around the
am
country. Athletics brings them to campus, where they can experience the
full richness of our great university. There can be little argument that the
overall success of our athletics program is an integral part of our growth,
our visibility, our ability to raise money, and ultimately our success.
nj
State of the University, Chancellor Jeffrey Vitter, August 29, 2016.

so
23. A winning football team produces enormous revenues through booster

ck
contributions, increased ticket sales, bowl revenues, and high-dollar multimedia/marketing

Ja
arrangements. Given these financial considerations and the others mentioned by Chancellor Vitter
in his State of the University address, the continued success and support of Ole Misss football
program has been, and continues to be, one of the highest priorities for Chancellor Vitter, the
OMAF, and the Board of Trustees for Institutions of Higher Learning.
24. Job security is not one of the benefits of being the head coach of a Division 1
college football program. Between 2009 and 2013, more than seventy Division 1 head football
7
coaches lost their jobs. Notwithstanding the platitudes about the importance of football coaches
supporting academic achievement, giving back to the community, and the like, the tenure of a
Division 1 head football coach depends on the coachs ability to recruit top talent, win right
away, and continue winning while avoiding scandals and not cheating.
25. With rare exceptions, a Division 1 head football coach who fails to meet these
expectations will soon be looking for another job. That said, Division 1 head football coaches who
m
have been replaced for not winning enough games have typically received offers from other
co
schools who were looking for a new head coach. The job opportunities are much more limited,
a.
however, for a Division 1 head football coach who leaves under the cloud of an off-the field
scandal or, worse yet, rumors and allegations that the coach and his staff were cheaters.
26.
ay
A highly successful Division 1 football program is defined by its consistency.
l
ba
Replacing a head football coach at a Division 1 school is both expensive and highly disruptive.
am
For these reasons and others, the presidents and athletic directors at Division 1 schools are
generally reluctant to replace a winning head football coach even when it becomes clear that the
nj
coach has fallen short in providing ethical leadership of the football program.
so
27. At all times relevant to this Complaint, that mindset strongly influenced the
ck
decisions made by the Ole Miss Control Group in dealing with the NCAAs numerous allegations
of recruiting violations by Coach Freeze and his staff. Indeed, the protection of Coach Freeze
Ja
became the Universitys number one priority in dealing with the NCAA investigation.
Late 2014: Ole Miss Commences its False and Defamatory PR Campaign
28. Determined to deflect and delay the potential damage from the NCAA
investigation, and with the knowledge and tacit approval of certain members of the Ole Miss
Control Group, Coach Freeze, AD Bjork, and Campbell reached an agreement in 2014 to carry out
8
a carefully orchestrated misinformation campaign, the specific purpose of which was to mislead
the media, Ole Miss boosters, and potential recruiting prospects about the true nature of the matters
that were being investigated by the NCAA.
29. This deceitful strategy involved having Coach Freeze, AD Bjork, and other
members of the Ole Miss Athletics Department tell sports journalists off the record that the
majority, most, or almost all of the NCAAs allegations were aimed at Coach Nutt and his
m
staff and that the NCAAs charges had little, if anything, to do with Coach Freeze. As further
co
alleged below, Coach Freeze personally carried out this part of the strategy at various times from
a.
2014 to 2017, reaching new heights when Coach Freeze courted the entire 2016 recruiting class
under false and misleading pretenses.
30.
ay
On October 2, 2014, citing multiple unnamed sources, a nationally-known sports
l
ba
journalist, referred to herein as Journalist #1, broke the story about the scope of the NCAAs
am
investigation of Ole Miss. In this news story, Journalist #1 wrote that one source with knowledge
of the probe said the current football staff of head coach Hugh Freeze is not believed to be
nj
implicated in any major violations, and that much of the football inquiry dates back to actions by
so
a previous Ole Miss staff. 2 It is now clear that Journalist # 1s unnamed sources gave him false
ck
and misleading information. The sources who lied to Journalist #1 before he wrote this story did
so for the purpose of creating a false public narrative that would deflect the heat created by the
Ja
NCAA investigation from Coach Freeze to Coach Nutt.
2
Many seasoned journalists, including Journalist #1, will rarely, if ever, link an off the record
source to a specific organization. This practice is designed to protect sources by making it more
difficult for someone to determine the sources identity. Plaintiff alleges, on information and
belief, that Journalist #1s unnamed sources for this story were senior members of the Ole Miss
Athletics Department.
9
31. Standing on their own, each false, misleading and defamatory statement made by
Coach Freeze and other members of the Athletics Department from 2014 through 2017 harmed
Coach Nutts reputation as a football coach and is a clear and deliberate breach of Section 8 of the
Severance Agreement. Collectively, the Defendants deliberately false and misleading statements
also constitute a blatant violation of SEC Bylaw 10.2 (prohibiting recruiting using false statements
or false pretenses), and an equally egregious violation of the Ole Miss Code of Ethics and Conduct
m
(requiring employees to act with fairness, honesty, accuracy, and respect for the rights of others).
co
Ole Miss Wrongly Declines Various Requests for Disclosure of the NOA
a.
32. The other key component of the Universitys false and misleading PR scheme
involved Ole Miss going to great lengths to resist the predictable public records requests from
ay
journalists who were seeking to discover the details of the NCAAs investigation. In several
l
ba
instances between 2014 and 2017, the Universitys deny/delay/distract approach to handling
am
public records requests on this topic was evidenced by their assertions of various exemptions and
redactions that were for the most part based on unprecedented and/or specious legal positions, the
nj
Universitys self-serving view of public policy, and other clear departures from the letter and spirit
so
of the Mississippi Public Records Act. Ole Misss wrongful refusal to disclose the NOA until May
ck
27, 2016 was a crucial component of its strategy to protect its head football coach at all costs
knowing full well that its deceptive communications would do immeasurable damage to Coach
Ja
Nutts reputation.
Coach Freezes Behavior in Defense of his Self-Image is Consistent with his Role in the
Universitys Smear Campaign
33. It is common knowledge among sports journalists that Coach Freeze does not take
kindly to criticism. Since the moment the NCAA investigation was first made public, Coach Freeze
has distinguished himself from other Division 1 head football coaches by: (a) consistently
10
exhibiting behaviors that are massively defensive; 3 (b) going to extraordinary lengths through
social media and otherwise to promote his self-image as a deeply spiritual Godly man whos done
nothing wrong and is being persecuted; 4 and (c) attempting to cultivate personal relationships with
sports journalists for the purpose of promoting his self-image through positive news stories and,
as further alleged below, exploiting their trust and deliberately misleading them into tweeting and
writing news stories that furthered Coach Freezes agenda. These personal characteristics
m
contributed to Coach Freezes decision to play the leading role in the self-serving smear campaign
co
that foreseeably damaged Coach Nutts reputation.
a.
AD Bjork and Coach Freeze Failed to Inform Chancellor Vitter About the Long-Running
Off the Record Smear Campaign or Coach Freezes Intention to Mislead the 2016 Football
Recruiting Class in a Similar Fashion
34.
ay
Leading the University through the crisis created by the NCAA investigation was
l
ba
particularly challenging for Chancellor Vitter, who assumed his new duties on January 1, 2016,
long after AD Bjork, Coach Freeze, and Campbell had developed their deplorable PR strategy. AD
am
Chancellor Vitter had only been on the job for three weeks when, unbeknownst to him, Coach
nj
Freeze took the Athletics Departments long-running smear campaign to an even more egregious
so
level. Bjork and Coach Freeze deliberately did not inform Chancellor Vitter of their deceptive PR
strategy or of their intention to escalate the misinformation campaign to protect the Universitys
ck
investment in football recruiting.

Ja
3
"If you have facts about a violation, send it to compliance@olemiss.edu," Freeze wrote in a
now-deleted tweet. "If not, please do not slander these young men or insult their family."
4
Late last year, a four-star prospect being recruited by Ole Miss said: Well, Coach Freeze told
me when youre that big and out there with faith in Christ, hes like, What do you expect? Jesus
got nailed to the cross. SB Nation, Dec. 28, 2016.
11
Coach Freeze Reaches Out to Sports Journalists as News of the Recently-Issued NOA
Threatens to Create an Unanticipated Recruiting Disaster of Epic Proportions
35. Even the best college football coaches in the country cant develop winning teams
without great players. For that reason, an effective recruiting program is the lifeblood of every
successful college football team. Statistically speaking, there is a strong correlation between
recruiting programs that consistently sign the highest-rated prospects and the number of games the
team wins. That, in turn, correlates to how long the head coach will keep his job and whether he
m
will receive additional financial incentives. As Ole Miss approached the final lap of the recruiting
co
season in late 2016, nobody understood these truisms better than Coach Freeze.
a.
36. The grand finale of the Ole Miss football recruiting season was an epic recruiting
l ay
event in Oxford. Coach Freeze and his staff invited their most coveted prospects to this event,
which capped off the single-biggest investment in football recruiting that Ole Miss had made
ba
during Coach Freezes five-year tenure as head coach. 5
am
37. This extraordinary recruiting event was scheduled and planned well in advance, and
the logistics of the event required that it had to occur, as scheduled, on Friday, January 29, 2016
nj
through Sunday, February 1, 2016.

so
38. The NCAA delivered the NOA to Ole Miss on or shortly before January 22, 2016.
ck
For Coach Freeze, the timing could not have been worse. The possibility of the media reporting
Ja
on this development on the eve of the upcoming recruiting event was, in his view, a looming crisis.
Coach Freeze knew that news stories revealing the truth about the contents of the NOA had the
potential to nullify the enormous investment that he and his staff had made in recruiting the most
talented prospects in the nation . Given the high expectations that had been set for the 2016 Ole
5
In 2016, the Athletics Departments spending on recruiting exceeded $1.2 million, with the
football program accounting for the largest portion.
12
Miss class, Coach Freeze was keenly aware that a catastrophic failure to meet those expectations
would be an unthinkable personal embarrassment.
39. With these things in mind, during the ten days leading up to the crucial weekend
recruiting event, Coach Freeze initiated off the record conversations with numerous sports
journalists for the specific purpose of creating multiple false and misleading news stories, tweets,
and other social media comments supporting the above-referenced false narrative, i.e., that the
m
NCAAs focus was on the former football coaching staff and Houston Nutt in particular; it had
co
little, if anything to do with Coach Freeze (hereinafter referred to as the false narrative).
a.
Examples of these false and misleading phone conversations and the damaging effects they had on
Coach Nutts reputation are set forth below.
40.
ay
In a 12-minute telephone conversation that Coach Freeze initiated with Journalist
l
ba
#2 beginning at 2:18 p.m. on January 21, 2016, Coach Freeze told the journalist a version of the
am
false narrative. The following week, Journalist #2 tweeted: Source: Majority of alleged football
violations at Ole Miss tied to Saunders/Academics/previous staff, not current coaching staff.
nj
Shortly thereafter, the bold-face text used in this message was reinforced when a large
so
photograph of Houston Nutt was posted beneath the original tweet. The false narrative Journalist
ck
#2 tweeted was re-tweeted 183 times.
41. In a 7-minute telephone conversation that Coach Freeze initiated with Journalist #3
Ja
beginning at 5:24 p.m. on January 21, 2016, Coach Freeze told the journalist a version of the false
narrative. The following week, Journalist #3 tweeted: The other football-related stuff dates back
to the Houston Nutt era. Hearing that stuff is six years old. Replying to this tweet, another
person tweeted: I say give ole Houston a lifetime show cause and be done with it. Journalist
13
#3s original tweet was re-tweeted 81 times. Consistent with his tweet, Journalist #3 posted a
news story the same day that included the following statement:
A "very minimal number" of allegations are tied to the current football

staff, and those are related to former Ole Miss offensive tackle Laremy
Tunsil. . . . Most of the football-related allegations, the source said, date
back to Houston Nutt's tenure. Nutt coached Ole Miss from 2008 through
2011.
Associated Press, January 29, 2016.
m
42. In a 5-minute telephone conversation that Coach Freeze initiated with Journalist #4
co
a.
narrative. An hour and twenty minutes later, Journalist #4 posted news story that included the
ay
following statement:
Multiple sources tell FOX Sports that the majority of the allegations stem
l
from womens basketball and track as well as from
ba
incidents occurring with the previous Rebels football staff from the
Houston Nutt era, and that the Notice of Allegations does not contain
am
anything that surprises the program.
Fox Sports, January 16, 2016, 4:35 p.m.

nj
At approximately the same time, Journalist #4 tweeted: SOURCES: Much of NCAA's

so
#OleMiss case regarding Freeze regime involves the Tunsil case (he was suspended 7 gms)
ck
43. In a 4-minute telephone conversation with Coach Freeze initiated by Journalist #5
Ja
narrative. Forty minutes later, in a 7-minute telephone conversation that AD Bjork initiated with
the same journalist, AD Bjork conveyed a similar version of the false narrative. At 5:35 p.m.,
Journalist #5 posted the following AP story, which was then republished in countless U.S.
newspapers:
Some of the allegations regarding the football program date back to

previous coach Houston Nutt, but others involve current coach Hugh
14
Freeze's tenure, a person familiar with the investigation told The

Associated Press on Friday.
The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is

ongoing.. . . .
The announcement was not unexpected but comes at a bad time for the
football program, which is trying to lock down one of the nation's most
highly regarded recruiting classes before national signing day on
Wednesday.
Associated Press, January 29, 2016, 5:35 p.m.
m
44. In a 13-minute telephone conversation between Campbell and Journalist #6 (ESPN)
co
beginning at 10:48 a.m. on January 29, 2016, Campbell told the journalist a version of the false
a.
narrative. In a 7-minute telephone conversation that AD Bjork initiated later that day with
l ay
Journalist #7 (also ESPN) beginning at 3:06 p.m. Bjork told the journalist a version of the false
narrative. Fifteen minutes later, Journalist #7s ESPN colleague (Journalist #6, who had spoken to
ba
Campbell at10:48 a.m.) tweeted the following message:
am
I'm told the Ole Miss Notice of Allegations doesn't contain any surprises.
Most of it predates Hugh Freeze and Ole Miss knew it was coming.
nj
3:26 PM - 29 Jan 2016.

so
Later that afternoon, Journalist #6 posted a story that strongly reinforced the false narrative
and quoted a source who had talked to his ESPN colleague (Journalist #7). The story said:
ck
Allegations connected to Mississippi's football team largely derived

Ja
from the 2008-11 tenure of Houston Nutt, sources said. Freeze was
named the Rebels' coach in December 2011.
Sources told ESPN.com that the new football violations in the NCAA's
report centered primarily on the Tunsil case.
"This is a fraction involving our current football staff," a source told

ESPN's [Journalist #9]. "Some of those things we've already self-
imposed some penalties around and already dealt with. This just happens
to be part of a broader process." (emphasis added)
15
The NCAA has charged Ole Miss with a number of rules violations, but
sources told ESPN that many of the allegations either do not involve
the football team or predate Hugh Freeze becoming the head coach.
The timing of the notice of allegations is anything but ideal for the Rebels.
National signing day is Wednesday, and Ole Miss is hosting several
recruits on campus this weekend as it tries to complete a class
currently ranked No. 3 by ESPN.
Ole Miss athletic director Ross Bjork, in a statement Friday, declined to

elaborate on the allegations. "As has been the case for the past three
years, we are bound by confidentiality and cannot comment publicly
m
on the matter," Bjork said.
co
ESPN, January 29, 2016 (emphasis added).
45. \On Friday, January 29, 2016, at 1:40 p.m., Journalist #1 posted a story entitled
a.
Sources: NCAA Formally Charges Mississippi with Rules Violations. Journalist #1 wrote that,
ay
according to sources, the NCAA had charged Ole Miss with more than 30 violations in football,
l
ba
womens basketball, and track and field. Journalist #1s story did not indicate how many of the
alleged violations related to football. Nor did the story reveal any information about the extent to
am
which the allegations involved the current or previous football coaching staff. Based on Journalist
nj
#1s breaking news story, the follow-up stories and tweets by journalists who had been duped by
so
Coach Freeze and other Ole Miss sources, and the impact of Ole Misss false narrative on sports
journalists who read those stories or learned of the false narrative from their colleagues, by the
ck
time the recruiting prospects started arriving in Oxford, there was already a perfect storm of
Ja
online, television, and radio news stories, tweets, and social media postings that reinforced and
continued to spread the false narrative. This Category 5 media storm continued to build on itself
and maintained its momentum for the next few weeks long enough for Ole Miss to hide behind
the false narrative and lock down its recruiting prospects before National Signing Day.
16
Unsure Whether his Coveted Prospects were Convinced by the False News Stories, Tweets and
Social Media Comments, Coach Freeze Personally Told at Least Four of the Prospects the
Most Egregious Version of the False Narrative
46. While Ole Miss was quite successful in duping the journalists and the public at
large, Coach Freeze wasnt confident that the results of the deceptive PR campaign would convince
the visiting top-rated prospects not to worry about the NCAA investigation. Therefore, Coach
Freeze decided to personally tell the false narrative to at least four of the prospects (and likely
m
others) during meetings they had with Coach Freeze and others during the epic recruiting weekend.
co
Apparently, it never crossed Coach Freezes mind that one of the prospects who heard the false
narrative directly from Coach Freeze might unknowingly out him during an exit interview with
a.
the media, thus destroying the confidentiality Coach Freeze had enjoyed when speaking with
ay
journalists off the record. But thats exactly what happened.
l
ba
47. Deontay Anderson, one of the most coveted prospects who attended the recruiting
weekend and later signed with Ole Miss, was interviewed by ESPN staff writer Gerry Hamilton
am
on Sunday, January 31, 2016, while Anderson was still in Oxford. Hamilton posted a news story
nj
that evening entitled Deontay Anderson, Top 2016 Safety, Discusses Ole Miss Visit, which
so
included the following quote from Anderson:
[The notice of allegations from the NCAA] didnt affect me. I talked to
ck
Coach Freeze about it. He said it was about things that had happened in
the past before he got to Ole Miss. I knew he would be honest with me.
Ja
(emphasis added)
48. Ole Miss made no comment about Andersons statement and presumably decided
that any comment or correction would draw more attention to the unintended on the record
disclosure of the false narrative.
49. Deontay Anderson was not the only prospect on campus that weekend who heard
the false narrative directly from Coach Freeze. At least three other prospects were told by Coach
17
Freeze the most egregious and defamatory version of the false narrative, i.e., Coach Freeze
specifically mentioned Houston Nutts name when explaining . . . that the NOA involved alleged
violations that occurred before Coach Freeze came to Ole Miss.
Ole Miss Turns a Blind Eye to the Uniformly False and Misleading News Stories, Tweets, and
Social Media Comments That Were Largely Attributed to Ole Miss Sources
50. No evidence whatsoever exists to show, or even suggest, that any representative of
Ole Miss took any steps to correct the false narrative.
m
51. Defendants failure to correct the record was deliberate and malicious and caused
co
further harm to Coach Nutts reputation.
a.
Months Later, Journalists React with Anger and Disbelief When the Release of the NOA
Makes Clear They Were Duped by the Ole Miss Athletics Department
52.
ay
After months of stonewalling, and hoping that the passage of time would mitigate
l
ba
the reaction of the journalists who they had lied to, Ole Miss finally released the NOA on May 27,
2016, revealing for the first time the fraud they committed against several respected sports
am
journalists, their loyal fan base, and the 2016 football recruiting class. As reported by the Clarion
nj
Ledger:
so
Ole Miss finally released the notice of allegations and its response to
it Friday morning [May 27, 2016]. . . . Nine of the 13 allegations levied
against the football program occurred under coach Hugh Freeze. Four
ck
were Level I violations, two Level II and three Level III.

Ja
Clarion-Ledger, May 27, 2016.
53. The passage of time did not have the effect Ole Miss had hoped for. From reading
the NOA, the deceived journalists quickly realized that the Ole Miss sources they had relied on
had betrayed their trust. After realizing they had been manipulated and deceived by Coach Freeze
and others just to protect Ole Misss investment in their recruiting prospects, most of the deceived
18
journalists were angry. Those who were not deceived directly were generally disgusted by what
Ole Miss had done.
54. Some of these journalists expressed their sentiments online. For example, on May
27, 2016, one of the journalists who had been deceived by Coach Freeze in late January 2016,
tweeted that Ole Misss statements that the NOA mainly involved previous staff at OM were false
and misleading. Be careful who you believe, I guess. The same day, that journalist simply tweeted
m
was false, misleading and intentional. The next day, the same journalist tweeted: Bad info,
co
misleading report. Similarly, a highly-respected national sports journalist who had not been
a.
directly deceived by Ole Miss tweeted a comment reminding people of when Ole Miss sources
leaked to friendly reporters right before Signing Day that all this stuff was pre-Freeze and
ay
sarcastically questioning how that could possibly be ethical.
l
ba
CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
am
55. From and after November 26, 2011, and pursuant to the terms of the Severance
Agreement, Defendants were contractually prohibited from making any statement whatsoever
nj
relative to Coach Nutts tenure as an employee of Ole Miss that might damage or harm his
so
reputation as a football coach. Ole Miss was contractually prohibited from making any
ck
statement whatsoever, truthful or not, that may damage or harm Coach Nutts reputation.
Ja
56. The Defendants, in breach of the Severance Agreement, repeatedly made
statements to the media and to the public in general, that were not only false and misleading, but
were damaging to Coach Nutts reputation as a football coach.
19
CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
57. Mississippi law imposes a covenant or duty of good faith and fair dealing in the
performance and enforcement of all contracts, including the Severance Agreement. This duty is
based on fundamental notions of fairness and precludes subterfuge and evasion and requires that
the parties observe standards of decency, fairness and reasonableness.
58. The Defendants, in breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, repeatedly
m
made statements to the media and to the public in general, that were not only false and
co
misleading, and damaging to Coach Nutts reputation as a football coach, but were made in bad
a.
faith, and with a purpose of avoiding responsibility for its own illegal conduct but instead to
blame Coach Nutt.

l ay
CAUSE OF ACTION
ba
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
am
59. Because the Defendants actions were malicious, fraudulent, egregious, in bad
faith and in total disregard for the rights of Coach Nutt, he is entitled to an award of punitive
nj
damages.
so
DAMAGES
ck
60. As a direct result of Defendants breach of contract and breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing, Coach Nutt is entitled to all damages allowed under Mississippi law
Ja
to include:
a. Lost wages;
b. Emotional distress;
c. Embarrassment;
d. Attorneys fees; and
20
e. Punitive Damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Premises Considered, Plaintiff Houston Dale Nutt, Jr. prays that this
Court enter judgment against the Defendants for breach of contract in an amount in excess of the
jurisdictional minimum of this Court for all costs of this action, attorneys fees, post-judgment
interest and for all other relief deemed proper.
m
Respectfully submitted,
co
This 12th day of July, 2017.
a.
Thomas A. Mars (AR Bar 86115)
Friday, Eldredge & Clark
400 West Capitol Ave.
l ay
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Telephone: (501) 370-1524
E-mail: tmars@fridayfirm.com
ba
By: /s/Walter C. Morrison, IV
am
Walter C. Morrison, IV (MS Bar 9653)

Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David,
Meunier & Washauer, LLC
nj
240 Trace Colony Park Drive, Suite 100

Ridgeland, MS 39157
so
Telephone: (601) 933-2054

E-mail: wmorrison@gainsben.com
ck
Ja
21

Houston Nutt Ole Miss File Watermarked

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Houston Nutt Ole Miss File Watermarked

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case: 3:17-cv-00130-NBB-RP Doc #: 15 Filed: 07/27/17 1 of 2 PageID #: 71

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

HOUSTON DALE NUTT,JR. PLAINTIFF

VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-130-NBB-RP

OLE MISS ATHLETICS FOUNDATION,

University of Mississippi and Mississippi Board of Trustees of State Institutions of

DATED: July 27, 2017.

OLE MISS ATHLETICS FOUNDATION

By: /s/ R. David Kaufman

R. David Kaufman(MS Bar No. 3526)

I, R. David Kaufman, hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing

of such filing to all counsel of record.

DATED: July 27, 2017.

/s/ R. David Kaufman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

HOUSTON DALE NUTT, JR. PLAINTIFF

OLE MISS ATHLETICS FOUNDATION,

the court as follows:

Street, Suite 1200, Jackson, Mississippi 39201.

4. The Institutions of Higher Learning, through its Board of Trustees, is a signatory to

Hood, at 550 High Street, Suite 1200, Jackson, Mississippi 39201.

5. The term Control Group appears in the Severance Agreement. In response to a

1. The Chancellor of the University of Mississippi;

2. The Director of Athletics;

3. The Senior Executive Athletics Director;

4. The Executive Associate Athletics Director;

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

of the Northern District of Mississippi.

position of Vice Chancellor for Intercollegiate Athletics in October 2016.

advance knowing that the statement was false and misleading.

until the University submitted its response in early June 2017.

information related to this investigation before today.

AD Bjorks statement was untrue.

described the importance of Ole Miss athletics to the Universitys success:

State of the University, Chancellor Jeffrey Vitter, August 29, 2016.

23. A winning football team produces enormous revenues through booster

contributions, increased ticket sales, bowl revenues, and high-dollar multimedia/marketing

OMAF, and the Board of Trustees for Institutions of Higher Learning.

that were being investigated by the NCAA.

under false and misleading pretenses.

NCAA investigation from Coach Freeze to Coach Nutt.

investment in football recruiting.

through Sunday, February 1, 2016.

would be an unthinkable personal embarrassment.

Coach Nutts reputation are set forth below.

#2 tweeted was re-tweeted 183 times.

A "very minimal number" of allegations are tied to the current football

Associated Press, January 29, 2016.

anything that surprises the program.

Fox Sports, January 16, 2016, 4:35 p.m.

At approximately the same time, Journalist #4 tweeted: SOURCES: Much of NCAA's

43. In a 4-minute telephone conversation with Coach Freeze initiated by Journalist #5

Some of the allegations regarding the football program date back to

Freeze's tenure, a person familiar with the investigation told The

The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is

Associated Press, January 29, 2016, 5:35 p.m.

3:26 PM - 29 Jan 2016.

Allegations connected to Mississippi's football team largely derived

"This is a fraction involving our current football staff," a source told

Ole Miss athletic director Ross Bjork, in a statement Friday, declined to

included the following quote from Anderson:

disclosure of the false narrative.

violations that occurred before Coach Freeze came to Ole Miss.

Ole Miss took any steps to correct the false narrative.