Case: 25CH1:23-cv-00947 Document #: 16 Filed: 11/30/2023 Page 1 of 6

IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI PLAINTIFF

BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS

VS. CAUSE NO.: 23-947

CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI DEFENDANT

AND

MOBILE MEDICAL AMBULANCE INTERESTED PARTY

SERVICE, INC.

CITY OF JACKSON’S
MOTION TO AMEND/RECONSIDER JUDGMENT

COMES NOW, Defendant, the City of Jackson (City or Defendant), by and

through its undersigned counsel, and files its Motion to Amend/Reconsider the

Judgment, pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure (M.R.C.P.),

and in support thereof would show unto this Court the following:

1. On November 20, 2023, this Court entered its Order granting Hinds

County’s request for an injunction; finding that the Interlocal Agreement between the City

and Hinds County is valid and binding; and enjoining the City from taking any further

action to enter its own contract for ambulance service until the expiration of the current

contract with Mobile Medic (d/b/a AMR) on August 31, 2026.

2. With all due respect to this Honorable Court, the Court’s Order contains

errors of law and fact that must be corrected to prevent manifest injustice. See Brooks v.

Robertson, 882 So. 2d 229, 233 (Miss. 2004).

Page 1 of 6
 Case: 25CH1:23-cv-00947 Document #: 16 Filed: 11/30/2023 Page 2 of 6

3. Clarity is also needed from this Court regarding the City’s enjoinment from

taking any actions seeking its own ambulance service until August 31, 2026. To be clear,

the City absolutely intends to obtain and administer its own ambulance service contract.

The City cannot wait until the day the current contract with AMR terminates because

there will be no time to issue a new Request for Proposals (RFP) for ambulance service;

review responses to the RFP; pick a winning vendor; negotiate a contract with the winning

vendor; hold a vote to void the current Interlocal Agreement with Hinds County; hold a

vote to accept the proposed contract from the winning vendor; introduce and hold a vote

for an Ambulance Service Ordinance for the City; and, assuming all of the above happens

and there are no legal challenges from Hinds County and/or AMR, work with the new

vendor to setup its ambulance service within the City. As demonstrated by the City’s

current ambulance service RFP and the resulting litigation, this process can take months

to complete. Further, having to wait until the date the current contract ends to achieve all

the above would result in a months’ long lapse in ambulance service for the City. This

cannot be allowed to happen.

4. The City also needs further clarity on whether suing the County for violating

the Interlocal Agreement by failing to properly administer its contract with AMR would

be a violation of this Court’s Order.

5. Mississippi common law is clear that, absent express statutory authority to

the contrary, contracts or any other type of agreements that bind successor boards are

voidable at any time by current boards. See Teeuwissen v. Hinds Cnty, Mississippi, by &

through its Bd. Of Supervisors, 22-60457, 168 (5th Cir. 2023). Further, there are no

timelines on when these types of agreements must be voided by a current board. This is

Page 2 of 6
 Case: 25CH1:23-cv-00947 Document #: 16 Filed: 11/30/2023 Page 3 of 6

true even when such a result appears inequitable or appears to be a bad deal. See

Broadband Voice, LLC v. Jefferson Cnty., 348 S0. 3d 305, 308 (Miss. 2022) (wherein the

Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that early-termination-fee provisions that were

negotiated by a previous board were no longer enforceable after the current board voided

the contract that contained the early-termination-fee provisions). Both private and

governmental entities who enter such an agreement assume the risk that said agreement

could be voided at any time by a successor board. Any other result would strip away the

discretionary rights and powers conferred by law upon successor governing bodies and

would diminish and/or eliminate the rights of citizens who have voted for the new board

to carry out the will of the citizenry. See Ne. Mental Health-Mental Retardation Comm’n

v. Cleveland, 187 So. 3d 601, 604 (Miss. 2016).

6. In the case at bar, there are two separate agreements in place, each of which

violates the rule against binding successor boards as there is no express statutory

authority for such agreements to bind successor boards. First, the Interlocal Agreement

between the City and Hinds County was created in 1990, thirty-three years ago. This

agreement is voidable, at any time, by either the Jackson City Council or the Hinds County

Board of Supervisors. If the City Council votes to void the Interlocal Agreement, the City

is then automatically no longer a third-party beneficiary to the ambulance service contract

between Hinds County and AMR. Procedurally, the City has not yet voted to void the

Interlocal Agreement because it would result in no ambulance coverage for the City. The

City planned on voting to void the Interlocal Agreement at the same time it voted to

approve the contract with the winning ambulance service vendor and voted to approve an

Page 3 of 6
 Case: 25CH1:23-cv-00947 Document #: 16 Filed: 11/30/2023 Page 4 of 6

Ambulance Service Ordinance for the City. This all must be done at the same time so that

there is continuous ambulance coverage for the City.

7. Second, the ambulance service contract between Hinds County and AMR,

to which the City is a third-party beneficiary, is voidable on its face. Its initial term was

for a period of five years, which exceeds the four-year term that a City Councilmember

serves. The initial five-year term then automatically renewed for another five-year term,

which, again, exceeds the four-year term of a City Councilmember. As such, the current

City Council, pursuant to the well-established common law discussed above, has the right,

at any time, to hold a vote to void that contract. However, as discussed in the paragraph

directly above, the City need not hold a vote to void this contract, the City can vote to void

the Interlocal Agreement itself which would effectively cancel the City’s status as a third-

party beneficiary to the contract between Hinds County and AMR. AMR assumed such a

risk when it contracted for a term that exceeded four years.

8. Finally, this Court found that the City had taken no formal action to rescind

the Interlocal Agreement. As discussed above, the City cannot vote to rescind the

Interlocal Agreement until it has a contract in place with a new ambulance service vendor.

Once the City votes to end the Interlocal Agreement, it will no longer be covered by the

County’s ambulance service contract with AMR. However, the City has not made it a

secret that it planned on seeking its own ambulance service provider. In fact, on April 28,

2020, the City passed a Resolution establishing an Emergency Medical Service District in

the City that passed with a vote of six to zero (please see MEC #13-7). The very first section

in that Resolution states, “(w)hereas, Section 41-59-51 of the Mississippi Code authorizes

the governing authorities of a municipality to establish a special subdivision to be known

Page 4 of 6
 Case: 25CH1:23-cv-00947 Document #: 16 Filed: 11/30/2023 Page 5 of 6

as an emergency medical service district to provide hospital care and ambulance

service for all or part of a geographical region under its jurisdiction.” (emphasis added).

This was the City’s first step in seeking its own ambulance service provider. Neither AMR

nor Hinds County filed an appeal of this Resolution. Further, the City Council, on January

17, 2023, had a public discussion item introduced by Council Vice President Angelique

Lee regarding the City’s EMS District and AMR’s poor ambulance response times within

the City (please see Exhibit “A”). Councilwoman Lee, during the discussion, expressed

that several of her constituents had contacted her regarding AMR’s slow response times

and expressed that she was also worried about the ambulance response times and that

such response times were unacceptable. Then, on June 22, 2023, Councilwoman Lee

introduced another discussion item regarding the City’s EMS District and AMR’s poor

ambulance response times (please see Exhibit “B”). Councilwoman Lee invited Donna

Echols to speak to the City Council about AMR taking over ninety minutes to respond to

Ms. Echols’ 911 call after she discovered her ex-husband suffering from several strokes.

Councilwoman Lee again expressed her worries and expressed that the City needed its

own ambulance service provider.

9. This motion is not filed for delay, but only that justice may be done. Further,

neither party will be prejudiced in considering this motion.

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that this Court

will enter an Order amending its previous Order to clarify the City’s position and what the

City is allowed to do and not do regarding obtaining its own ambulance service provider.

Defendant further prays for any such other general or equitable relief as this Court deems

appropriate.

Page 5 of 6
 Case: 25CH1:23-cv-00947 Document #: 16 Filed: 11/30/2023 Page 6 of 6

Respectfully submitted this the 30th day of November 2023.

CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

By: /s/ Justin Powell

Claire Barker (MSB #101312)
Special Assistant to the City Attorney
Justin Powell (MSB #102583)
Deputy City Attorney

OF COUNSEL:

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

455 East Capitol Street
Post Office Box 2779
Jackson, Mississippi 39207-2779
Office: 601-960-1799

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that he has this day filed via MEC a true and correct copy

of the foregoing pleading which gave notice of said filing to all attorneys of record in this

matter.

So certified, this the 30th day of November 2023.

/s/ Justin Powell

Justin Powell (MSB #102583)

Page 6 of 6