Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ANSWER
3. These Defendants admit this Court has jurisdiction over Federal claims, but these
Defendants deny any such claims, and these Defendants further deny any supplemental
County, TN. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 4 are admitted by these Defendants.
1
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 79
5. These Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the
Complaint.
6. These Defendants deny any incidents gave rise to any claim of the Plaintiffs, but
these Defendants admit Mr. Smith served as Superintendent of Schools as the times described in
7. These Defendants are aware Mr. Pinkston is the DA for Hamilton County.
10. These Defendants HCDE and Smith admit the allegations contained in paragraph
10 of the Complaint.
11. These Defendants admit the first sentence of the allegations contained in
form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained with the second and third sentence of the
Complaint.
15. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, but
deny that the actions as alleged were timely or that authorities were properly notified.
2
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 80
16. These Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the
Complaint.
Complaint.
18. These allegations are vague and do not appear to be directed at these Defendants,
and therefore, no response is required. In the alternative, these Defendants are aware of the
proceedings conducted by DA Pinkston. These Defendants are also aware of the involvement of
the Pittman County District Attorney and the Sevierville Police Departments proceedings
related to the incident described on December 22, 2017, but these Defendants had no
19. The allegations of Paragraph 19 are vague, and such allegations do not appear to
be directed at these Defendants, and therefore, no response is required. In the alternative, these
Defendants are aware of the proceedings described in Paragraph 19, but these Defendants lack
of the Complaint.
20. The allegations of Paragraph 20 are vague, and such allegations do not appear to
be directed at these Defendants, and therefore, no response is required. In the alternative, these
Defendants are aware of the proceedings described in Paragraph 20, but these Defendants lack
of the Complaint.
Complaint.
3
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 81
22. These Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the
Complaint.
24. These Defendants are aware of the indictment, but these Defendant lack
24 of the Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
27. These Defendants are aware of the dismissal, but these Defendants lack
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
of Paragraph 27, and these Defendants object to the legal conclusions stated therein.
Complaint.
29. Defendants admit that Amelia Jarvis is the wife James R. Jarvis. The remainder
Montgomery. The remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the Complaint are
denied.
31. Defendants admit that Janet Nayadley is the wife of Allard J. Nayadley. The
4
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 82
32. These Defendants responses herein in paragraphs 1-32 are incorporated herein.
These Defendants deny any act or omission by any of these Defendants violated any of the
Plaintiffs rights as alleged in paragraph 32 of the Complaint. These Defendants deny any Joint
and Several Liability for any allegations. Any remaining allegations are denied.
Complaint.
Complaint.
35. These Defendants responses to paragraphs 1-34 of the Complaint are incorporated
36. These Defendants admit Mr. Smith was appointed Superintend of Schools by the
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
40. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
41. These Defendants responses to Paragraphs 1-40 of the Complaint are incorporated
42. These Defendants deny any misreporting or misrepresentations to the Public, and
therefore, these Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 42. To the extent any duties were
5
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 83
owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs, these Defendants affirmatively assert all duties were
Complaint.
44. The allegations of Paragraph 44 are not directed at these Defendants, but these
Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
45. The allegations of Paragraph 45 are not directed at these Defendants, but these
Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
Complaint.
47. Denied. The Plaintiffs have no legal cause of action as described, and these
Defendants specifically assert Failure to State a Claim as an affirmative defense as well as the
Statute of Limitations as well as requesting a denial of supplemental jurisdiction for the Federal
Court to hear any state law complaints. These Defendants also assert the Tennessee
Governmental Tort Liability Act as an affirmative defense to any state law claims. These
Defendants also affirmatively assert Qualified Immunity and Sovereign Immunity as affirmative
49. Denied. The Plaintiffs have no legal cause of action as described, and these
Defendants specifically assert Failure to State a Claim as an affirmative defense as well as the
6
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 84
Statute of Limitations as well as requesting a denial of supplemental jurisdiction for the Federal
Court to hear any state law complaints. These Defendants also assert the Tennessee
Governmental Tort Liability Act as an affirmative defense to any state law claims. These
Defendants also affirmatively assert Qualified Immunity and Sovereign Immunity as affirmative
50. These Defendants incorporate their responses and affirmative defenses set forth in
Paragraphs 1-49 of this Answer as if fully set forth herein. The Plaintiffs have no legal cause of
action as described, and these Defendants specifically assert Failure to State a Claim as an
supplemental jurisdiction for the Federal Court to hear any state law complaints. These
Defendants also assert the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act as an affirmative defense
to any state law claims. These Defendants also affirmatively assert Qualified Immunity and
51. Denied. The Plaintiffs have no legal cause of action as described, and these
Defendants specifically assert Failure to State a Claim as an affirmative defense as well as the
Statute of Limitations as well as requesting a denial of supplemental jurisdiction for the Federal
Court to hear any state law complaints. These Defendants also assert the Tennessee
governmental Tort Liability Act as an affirmative defense to any state law claims. These
Defendants also affirmatively assert Qualified Immunity and Sovereign Immunity as affirmative
52. These Defendants incorporate their responses and affirmative defenses set forth in
Paragraphs 1-51 of this Answer, and these Defendants deny any further allegations. These
7
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 85
53. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 53 of the
Complaint.
54. These Defendants incorporate their responses and affirmative defenses set forth in
Paragraphs 1-53 of this Answer, and these Defendants deny any further allegations. These
Complaint.
57. These Defendants incorporate their responses and affirmative defenses set forth in
Paragraphs 1-55 of this Answer, and these Defendants deny any further allegations. These
Defendants specifically deny any liability to the Plaintiffs. Any remaining allegations are denied.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
61. Denied. The Plaintiffs have no legal cause of action as described, and these
Defendants specifically assert Failure to State a Claim as an affirmative defense as well as the
Statute of Limitations as well as requesting a denial of supplemental jurisdiction for the Federal
Court to hear any state law complaints. These Defendants also assert the Tennessee
Governmental Tort Liability Act as an affirmative defense to any state law claims. These
8
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 86
Defendants also affirmatively assert Qualified Immunity and Sovereign Immunity as affirmative
62. These Defendants incorporate their responses and affirmative defenses set forth in
Paragraphs 1-61 of this Answer, and these Defendants deny any further allegations. These
Defendants specifically deny any liability to the Plaintiffs. Any remaining allegations are denied.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
9
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 87
72. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 72 of the
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
75. These Defendants incorporate their responses and affirmative defenses set forth in
Paragraphs 1-74 of this Answer, and these Defendants deny any further allegations. These
Defendants specifically deny any liability to the Plaintiffs. Any remaining allegations are denied.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
10
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 88
82. These Defendants incorporate their responses and affirmative defenses set forth in
Paragraphs 1-81 of this Answer, and these Defendants deny any further allegations. These
Defendants specifically deny any liability to the Plaintiffs. Any remaining allegations are denied.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
89. These Defendants incorporate their responses and affirmative defenses set forth in
Paragraphs 1-88 of this Answer, and these Defendants deny any further allegations. These
Defendants specifically deny any liability to the Plaintiffs. Any remaining allegations are denied.
Complaint.
Complaint.
11
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 89
92. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 92 of the
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
100. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 100 of the
Complaint.
101. These Defendants incorporate their responses and affirmative defenses set forth in
Paragraphs 1-100 of this Answer, and these Defendants deny any further allegations. These
Defendants specifically deny any liability to the Plaintiffs. Any remaining allegations are denied.
102. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 102 of the
Complaint.
12
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 90
103. These Defendants incorporate their responses and affirmative defenses set forth in
Paragraphs 1-102 of this Answer, and these Defendants deny any further allegations. These
Defendants specifically deny any liability to the Plaintiffs. Any remaining allegations are denied.
104. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 104 of the
Complaint.
105. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 105 of the
Complaint.
106. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 106 of the
Complaint.
107. These Defendants incorporate their responses and affirmative defenses set forth in
Paragraphs 1-106 of this Answer, and these Defendants deny any further allegations. These
Defendants specifically deny any liability to the Plaintiffs. Any remaining allegations are denied.
108. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 108 of the
Complaint.
109. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 109 of the
Complaint.
110. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 110 of the
Complaint.
111. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 111 of the
Complaint.
112. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 112 of the
Complaint.
13
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 91
113. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 113 of the
Complaint.
114. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 114 of the
Complaint.
115. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 115 of the
Complaint.
116. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 116 of the
Complaint.
117. These Defendants incorporate their responses and affirmative defenses set forth in
Paragraphs 1-116 of this Answer, and these Defendants deny any further allegations. These
Defendants specifically deny any liability to the Plaintiffs. Any remaining allegations are
denied.
118. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 118 of the
Complaint.
119. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 119 of the
Complaint.
120. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 120 of the
Complaint.
121. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 121 of the
Complaint.
122. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 122 of the
Complaint.
14
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 92
123. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 123 of the
Complaint.
124. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 124 of the
Complaint.
125. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 125 of the
Complaint.
126. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 126 of the
Complaint.
127. These Defendants incorporate their responses and affirmative defenses set forth in
Paragraphs 1-126 of this Answer, and these Defendants deny any further allegations. These
Defendants specifically deny any liability to the Plaintiffs. Any remaining allegations are
denied.
128. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 128 of the
Complaint.
129. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 129 of the
Complaint.
130. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 130 of the
Complaint.
131. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 131 of the
Complaint.
15
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 93
133. These Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
Pinkstons actions or decisions, but these Defendants deny any misrepresentations. Any
135. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 135 of the
Complaint.
137. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 137 of the
Complaint.
138. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 138 of the
Complaint.
139. These Defendants incorporate their responses and affirmative defenses set forth in
Paragraphs 1-138 of this Answer, and these Defendants deny any further allegations. These
Defendants specifically deny any liability to the Plaintiffs. Any remaining allegations are denied.
140. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 140 of the
Complaint.
141. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 141 of the
Complaint.
142. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 142 of the
Complaint.
16
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 94
143. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 143 of the
Complaint.
144. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 144 of the
Complaint.
145. These Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested in their
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Defendants aver that the claims in the Complaint are barred by the statute of
limitations.
2. Defendants aver that the Complaint fails to identify to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. In fact, Defendants aver that many of the verified allegations by the
Plaintiffs are patently false, and the claims are frivolous. Defendants have notified counsel of the
frivolous nature of the claims, and Defendants reserve the right to seek sanctions under Fed. R.
Civ. P. Rule 11 and 42 U.S.C. 1983 should Plaintiffs refuse to withdraw all frivolous claims
3. Defendant Smith relies upon the affirmative defense of Qualified Immunity for
those claims made against him in his individual capacity as a state actor. Defendants also asserts
4. Defendant HCDE avers that municipal liability is not available under Monroe v.
Dept of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
5. Defendants aver that the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act bars
Plaintiffs claims, to the extent asserted against these Defendants, for false arrest, false
17
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 95
contract, fraud, defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, and selective prosecution. Tenn. Code Ann. 29-20-205(2), (5), and (6).
6. Defendants aver that all alleged acts and omissions against these Defendants arose
under the Defendants discretionary function. All related claims are barred by the Tennessee
8. Defendants aver that punitive damages are not recoverable against them.
9. Defendants rely upon the doctrine of comparative fault against the Plaintiffs.
Should the facts demonstrate that the Plaintiffs, any or all of them, were at fault for their
damages, the Plaintiffs damages should be reduced in an amount proportional to their percentage
of fault. Should a factfinder conclude that Plaintiffs fault equaled or exceeded the fault of the
remaining defendants in this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs should be barred from recovery.
10. Defendants rely upon the doctrine of comparative fault against the co-Defendants.
Should the facts demonstrates that the co-Defendants, any or all of them, were at fault for the
Plaintiffs damages, the liability for each Defendants should be allocated in an amount
11. Defendants rely upon Tenn. Code Ann. 49-5-511(a)(3) as a defense to the claim
12. Defendants aver that Plaintiffs A. Montgomery and A. Nayadley had no right to
due process, waived their right to due process and failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.
13. Defendants aver that J. Jarvis had no liberty interest or due process rights related
to reassignment.
18
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 96
14. Defendants aver as a defense to Plaintiffs breach of contract claim that Plaintiffs
15. Defendants aver that Plaintiffs defamation claims and malicious prosecution
16. Defendants aver that HCDE had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its
employment actions. These employment decisions were based on reasonable factors other than
17. Defendants aver that to the extent Plaintiffs have any damages their failure to
18. Defendants reserve the right to raise additional defenses as the litigation continues
Wherefore, now having fully answered Plaintiffs Complaint, these Defendants demand a
jury and request that the Complaint be dismissed and attorneys fees and other costs awarded to
Respectfully submitted,
19
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 97
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this the 21st day of July, 2017, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document has been served via the courts electronic filing system as follows:
20
Case 1:17-cv-00172-TRM-CHS Document 23 Filed 07/21/17 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 98