Clawback File

Case: 25CI1:22-cv-00286-EFP Document #: 72 Filed: 07/11/2022 Page 1 of 29
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES PLAINTIFF
v. CAUSE No. 22-cv-00286-EFP
MISSISSIPPI COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER, INC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS
and
MISSISSIPPI COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER, INC. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF
v.
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES COUNTER-DEFENDANT
______________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT NANCY NEW’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

______________________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW Defendant Nancy Whitten New, through counsel, and files her Answer and
Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint filed by the Mississippi Department of Human Services
(“MDHS”).
GENERAL DENIALS AND DEFENSES
Pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b), Defendant generally denies each and
every averment contained in the Complaint not specifically admitted including, without limitation,
all averments contained in the initial paragraph, the headings, the numbered paragraphs and
subparts, the unnumbered paragraphs and subparts, and all tables, charts and graphs. Defendant
has no obligation to respond to Legal Conclusions, as that term is defined herein, as they are not
averments. Id. If a response is required, Defendant generally denies all legal conclusions, legal
arguments, purported statements of law, interpretations of law, and purported applications of law
to alleged facts (“Legal Conclusions”) contained in the Complaint. Defendant generally denies all
averments based on, related to, or derived from any contract not attached to the Complaint, as
required by Miss. R. Civ. P. 10(d). Defendant generally denies that MDHS is entitled to any relief
from Defendant whatsoever, based on any legal theory, including, without limitation, the “Relief
Requested” and Paragraphs (1)-(5) on pages 66 and 67 (“Damages” or “Recovery”).
Defendant affirmatively states, generally, and incorporates into each and every paragraph
of this Answer and its Affirmative Defenses that MDHS, at all times relevant hereto, acted through
some or all of the following individuals, including, without limitation: Governor Phil Bryant,
Executive Director John Davis, Executive Director Chris Freeze, Deputy Executive Director of
Operations Jacob Black, Deputy Executive Director Garrig Shields, Deputy Executive Director of
Administration David Barton, Deputy Executive Director of Administration Chip Butler, Director
of Sustainable Change Ted “Teddy” DiBiase, Jr., Director of Transformational Change Brett
DiBiase, Director of Budgets and Accounting Chris Christmas, Director of Budgets and
Accounting Bridgette Bell, Director of Program Integrity Fredrick Ward, Director of Program
Integrity Laketha Gilmore, Director of Monitoring Win Girod, Director of Monitoring Randy
Derrick, Director of Procurement Services Nick Bridge, Director of Economic Assistance Larry
Strebeck, Director of Funding Sandra Giddy, General Counsel and Principal Deputy Executive
Director Andrea Sanders, Executive Attorney Sherry Johnson, Special Assistant Attorney General
Sara Roberts, Special Assistant Attorney General Joyce Hill Williams, Special Assistant Attorney
General Earl Scales, Executive Assistant Zola Haralson, and dozens of other MDHS executives,
attorneys and staff (collectively, “MDHS Executives”).
FIRST DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a claim or cause of action against Defendant upon which relief
can be granted.
2
SECOND DEFENSE
MDHS is estopped from seeking Damages from Defendant that were caused, in whole or
in part, by acts and/or omissions of MDHS, acting through the MDHS Executives.
THIRD DEFENSE
MDHS directed and/or approved all expenditures referenced in the Complaint, and
Defendant had a right to rely on, and did rely on, directions and/or approvals by MDHS, acting
through the MDHS Executives.
FOURTH DEFENSE
MDHS’s breach of contract claims against Defendant fail because MDHS had no contract
with Defendant.
FIFTH DEFENSE
MDHS, acting through the MDHS Executives, drafted, approved, and executed subgrant
agreements and other contracts that were ambiguous as to Permissible TANF Expenditures.
SIXTH DEFENSE
MDHS cannot ex post facto unilaterally revise the various “scopes of work” associated
with each transaction in the Complaint.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
MDHS is estopped from redefining permissible TANF expenditures more narrowly under
Miss. Code Ann. §43-17-1(4), for purposes of this litigation, than applicable federal statutes, State
Plans, subgrant agreements, and MDHS’s own course of performance (“Permissible TANF
Expenditures), which were in existence and practice prior to and during the relevant time period.
EIGHTH DEFENSE
3
MDHS is estopped from substituting or conflating obligations arising under one subgrant
or contract with obligations arising under another subgrant or contract.
NINTH DEFENSE
MDHS, acting through the MDHS Executives, was contributorily negligent in directing
and/or approving the expenditures described in the Complaint, to the extent these expenditures
were not Permissible TANF Expenditures.
TENTH DEFENSE
Defendant acted under duress as a result of financial and other hardships imposed on
Defendant by MDHS, acting through MDHS Executives.
ELEVENTH DEFENSE
MDHS is estopped from disclaiming spending decisions made, in whole or in part, at the
direction of MDHS Executives and/or with their knowledge, approval and/or participation.
TWELFTH DEFENSE
If any of the MDHS Executives acted illegally, as alleged by MDHS, Defendant is not
liable for Damages caused said illegal conduct.
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
If there was a civil conspiracy as alleged in the Complaint, MDHS, acting through the
MDHS Executives, was a co-conspirator and cannot recover Damages.
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
To the extent funds were spent outside Permissible TANF Expenditures, Defendant is
entitled to contribution from MDHS for its direction, approval and other conduct, acting through
the MDHS Executives, that resulted, in whole or in part, in any Damages.
4
FIFTEENTH DEFENSE
Defendant is entitled to setoff based on MDHS’s conduct, acting through the MDHS
Executives, which directly and proximately caused and/or contributed to any Damages.
SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
MDHS, acting through the MDHS Executives, has waived its right to pursue Recovery
from Defendant.
SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE
MDHS has failed to plead its fraud allegations against Defendant with particularity, as
required by Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE
MDHS’s negligent acts, omissions, and/or intentional conduct, through the MDHS
Executives, bars Recovery from Defendant.
NINETEENTH DEFENSE
MDHS, acting through the MDHS Executives, was the proximate cause of any alleged
misspending; without MDHS’s conduct, through the MDHS Executives, no alleged misspending
would have occurred.
TWENTIETH DEFENSE
Defendant hereby answers each and every averment in the Complaint, paragraph-by-
paragraph, as follows:
ANSWER
1. The averments in Paragraph 1 are not directed at Defendant, and, therefore, no
response is required.
5
4. Defendant admits that she is an adult resident of Jackson, Mississippi, who may be
served with process at her residence on Sheffield Drive, as listed in the Complaint. The remaining
averments in Paragraph 4 are denied.
6
7
8
40. Denied.
41. Denied.
42. Denied.
43. Denied.
44. Denied as stated. Any contracts, whether subgrant agreements or otherwise, speak
for themselves.
45. Paragraph 45 is not directed at Defendant. Therefore, no response is required. If a
response is required, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the averments. Therefore, they are denied.
9
47. Paragraph 47 is not directed at Defendant, and, therefore, no response is required.
If a response is required, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the averments. Therefore, they are denied.
51. Denied.
52. Denied.
53. Denied.
54. Denied.
55. Denied.
10
58. Denied as stated. Any contracts, whether subgrant agreements or otherwise, speak
for themselves.
60. Denied.
61. Denied.
62. Denied.
63. Denied.
64. Denied.
65. Denied.
66. Denied.
67. Denied as stated, including all averments in Paragraph 67 and Table 1.
MDHS, acting through John Davis and the MDHS Executives, instructed Defendant to
cause MCEC to hire Austin Smith, using, in whole or in part, limited purpose grant funds, to
perform computer-related services for MDHS, John Davis, and others, as an inducement or
incentive to John Davis and others.
cause MCEC to contract with Priceless Ventures LLC on May 1, 2018 for a five month term; and
on October 1, 2018 for a twelve month term in the amount of $130,000 for “Law of 16 personal
development and professional leadership training and other services and activities throughout the
State of Mississippi.”
11
cause MCEC to contract with and/or employ Adam Such.
cause MCEC to hire MDHS Director of Transformational Change Brett DiBiase in or around
September 2017 at an annual salary of $250,000 plus travel allowance.
68. Denied.
69. Denied.
70. Denied.
71. Denied.
72. Denied as stated. MDHS, acting through John Davis and the MDHS Executives,
instructed Defendant to cause MCEC to hire Austin Smith, using, in whole or in part, limited
purpose grant funds, to perform computer-related services for MDHS, John Davis, and others, as
an inducement or incentive to John Davis and others.
12
78. Denied.
instructed Defendant to cause MCEC to contract with Priceless Ventures LLC on May 1, 2018 for
a five month term; and on October 1, 2018 for a twelve month term in the amount of $130,000 for
13
“Law of 16 personal development and professional leadership training and other services and
activities throughout the State of Mississippi.”
instructed Defendant to cause MCEC to hire MDHS Director of Transformational Change Brett
DiBiase in or around September 2017 at an annual salary of $250,000 plus travel allowance.
14
instructed Defendant to cause MCEC to hire MDHS Director of Transformational Change Brett
DiBiase in or around September 2017 at an annual salary of $250,000 plus travel allowance.
Defendant knew that MDHS Director of Transformational Change Brett DiBiase not qualified to
perform the services for which Defendant was instructed to hire him.
instructed Defendant to cause MCEC to pay Rise in Malibu $160,000 for treatment for Brett
DiBiase.
instructed Defendant to cause MCEC to pay, using limited purpose grant funds, American Express
charges incurred by John Davis and other MDHS Executives that included first class travel and
luxury hotel accommodations.
15
16
instructed Defendant to cause MCEC to contract with NCC Ventures, LLC for $50,000 in
17
consideration generally for “Workforce Development Services” to be provided between February
1, 2018 and September 30, 2018.
110. Denied as stated. MCEC’s contract with NCC Ventures, LLC speaks for itself
concerning the scope of work.
111. Denied.
112. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the averments. Therefore, they are denied.
114. Denied.
115. Paragraph 115 and Table 2 are denied as stated.
Defendant caused MCEC to contract with Magnolia Strategies, LLC, owned by attorney
Jess New, in the amount of $100,000 per year as a flat fee for legal services relating to contracts
between MCEC and its partners around the State; lease agreements; employment agreements;
policies and procedures manuals; grant and other funding mechanisms; government relations and
legislative initiatives; creation and enhancement of programmatic partnerships, and other business
law consulting activities. Such services are Permissible TANF Expenditures.
cause MCEC to fund an investment by the State of Mississippi in Prevacus, Inc. Defendant caused
18
funds to be transferred to Prevacus, Inc. on at least April 8, May 10, and July 16, 2019 in the
amounts of $500,000, $250,000, and $400,000, respectively.
New Learning Resources, Inc. received grants from MCEC for programs and services that
were Permissible TANF Expenditures.
118. Denied.
directed Defendant to provide $5 million on behalf of the State of Mississippi to Prevacus, Inc.
during a meeting with Jake Vanlandingham at Brett Favre’s home.
during a meeting with Jake Vanlandingham at Brett Favre’s home.
Defendant knew that Prevacus, Inc. was ineligible to receive limited use public grant funds.
123. Denied.
19
125. Denied.
126. Denied.
127. Denied.
129. Paragraph 129 and the Table are denied as stated. MDHS, acting through John
Davis and the MDHS Executives, directed Defendant to provide $5 million on behalf of the State
of Mississippi to Prevacus, Inc. Pursuant to instructions by MDHS, acting through John Davis and
the MDHS Executives, Defendant caused funds to be transferred to Prevacus, Inc. on April 8, May
10, and July 16, 2019 in the amounts of $500,000, $250,000, and $400,000, respectively.
Defendant denies that any personal ownership interests in Prevacus, Inc. or PreSolMD were ever
acquired.
130. Paragraph 130 and Table 3 are denied as stated.
cause MCEC to contract with Victory Sports Foundation in the amount of $1,200,000.
Defendant caused MCEC to contract with the MD Foundation on January 1, 2018 in the
amount of $371,000 to provide services related to parenting and abstinence classes, teen pregnancy
prevention programs, healthy marriage initiatives, relationship building skills, child abuse/neglect
programs, effective fathering classes, domestic violence prevention programs, workforce
20
development, educational services, and other various services. Dupree performed services
pursuant to this agreement, and payment for said services is a Permissible TANF Expenditure.
Governor Phil Bryant directed Defendant to provide funds to Brett Favre, and Defendant
caused MCEC to contract with Favre Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $1,100,000 in
consideration for Favre speaking at events, keynote speaking, radio and promotional events, and
business partner development. Favre performed services pursuant to this agreement, and payment
for said services is a Permissible TANF Expenditure.
130. [Sic] The incorrectly numbered Paragraph 130, which follows Table 3, is not
directed at Defendant. Therefore, no response is required. If a response is required, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments.
Therefore, they are denied.
131. Denied as stated. MDHS, acting through John Davis and other MDHS Executives,
instructed Defendant to cause MCEC to contract with Victory Sports Foundation to provide fitness
and nutrition services at several fitness boot camps in counties around the State in support of
MDHS’s Families First initiative. Victory Sports Foundation proposed and provided services
pursuant to this agreement. As to what this Co-Defendant “intended,” Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to for a belief as to the truth of the averments. Therefore, they
are denied.
instructed Defendant to cause MCEC to contract with Victory Sports Foundation to provide fitness
and nutrition services at several fitness boot camps in counties around the State in support of
MDHS’s Families First initiative. Victory Sports Foundation provided services pursuant to this
agreement.
21
134. Denied as stated. Defendant caused MCEC to contract with the MD Foundation
and the Marcus Dupree Foundation on January 1, 2018 and February 20, 2018, respectively, for a
variety of services relating to public appearances in support of MDHS’s Families First initiative
and lease of a Multi-Use Facility. Amounts paid to MD Foundation and Marcus Dupree
Foundation pursuant to these contracts were for services rendered, and to be rendered, including
Permissible TANF Expenditures.
137. Denied as stated. Governor Phil Bryant directed Defendant to provide funds to Brett
Favre, and Defendant caused MCEC to contract with Favre Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of
22
$1,100,000 in consideration for Favre speaking at events, keynote speaking, radio and promotional
events, and business partner development. Favre performed services pursuant to this agreement,
and payment for these services is a Permissible TANF Expenditure.
138. Denied as stated. Governor Phil Bryant directed Defendant to provide funds to Brett
Favre, and Defendant caused MCEC to contract with Favre Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of
$1,100,000 in consideration for Favre speaking at events, keynote speaking, radio and promotional
events, and business partner development. Favre performed services pursuant to this agreement,
and payment for these services is a Permissible TANF Expenditure.
139. Denied.
141. Denied.
142. Denied.
143. Denied.
144. Denied.
145. Denied.
146. Denied.
147. Denied.
148. Denied.
149. Paragraph 149 and the unnumbered paragraph that precedes it are not directed at
Defendant, and, therefore, no response is required. If a response is required, Defendant is without
23
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. Therefore,
they are denied.
24
instructed Defendant to cause MCEC to contract with Soul City Hospitality LLC (“Soul City”) to
lease premises located at Merchants Building Store #4 at the “Old Mississippi Farmers Market,”
352 East Woodrow Wilson Boulevard, Jackson, Mississippi 39216.
162. MDHS failed to attach a copy of the “Sublease Agreement,” the alleged contract at
issue, to the Complaint, as required by Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 10(d). Defendant is
25
164. MDHS failed to attach a copy of the “Sublease Agreement,” the alleged contract at
issue, to the Complaint, as required by Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 10(d). Defendant is
165. Denied.
166. Paragraph 166 and Table 4 are denied.
167. Paragraph 167 including, without limitation, Subparts A-I are denied.
168. Denied.
169. Denied.
170. Denied.
171. Denied, including, without limitation, Subparts A-E.
172. Denied.
173. Denied.
174. Denied.
If a response is required, the averments are denied.
Defendant denies that MDHS is entitled to any relief whatsoever from Defendant,
including, without limitation, the “Relief Requested” and Paragraphs (1)-(5) on pages 66 and 67
TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE
Defendant reasonably relied on then-Governor Phil Bryant, acting within his broad
statutory authority as chief executive of the State, including authority over MDHS and TANF, and
his extensive knowledge of Permissible TANF Expenditures from 12 years as State Auditor, four
26
years as Lieutenant Governor, and a number of years as Governor leading up to and including the
relevant time period.
TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE
Defendant affirmatively pleads applicable statutes of limitations and laches.
TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE
MDHS has improperly joined 38 Defendants in this action involving claims based on over
twenty different contractual agreements, most with different parties, and all covering different
times, amounts, terms, obligations, legal issues, and defenses. Defendant, therefore, moves the
Court to sever Defendants into separate actions consistent with Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure
20 and applicable caselaw.
TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
To the extent Defendant is held liable for the acts and/or omission of any Co-Defendants
or third parties, Defendant is entitled to, and reserves the right to seek, contribution, indemnity,
setoff, recoupment and all other forms of relief, without waiver of same.
AND NOW, having fully answered the Complaint, and having raised Affirmative
Defenses, Defendant respectfully requests dismissal of the Complaint against Defendant, with
prejudice, with all costs assessed to Plaintiff MDHS. Defendant requests all other relief the Court
may deem appropriate.
27
THIS, the 11th day of July 2022.
Respectfully submitted,
CARROLL BUFKIN, PLLC
/s/ Thomas G. Bufkin

_______________________________
Thomas G. Bufkin, MSB# 10810
On behalf of Nancy New
Of Counsel:
Thomas G. Bufkin
Luke E. Whitaker
1076 Highland Colony Parkway
600 Concourse, Suite 125
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Telephone: 601.982.5011
Facsimile: 601.853.9540
tgb@carrollbufkin.com
lwhitaker@carrollbufkin.com
Cynthia Speetjens
CYNTHIA H. SPEETJENS, P.A.
100 Depot Drive, Suite B
Madison, MS 39110
T: (601) 954-1369
cspeetjens@ms-lawyer.net
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have filed the above and foregoing via MEC, which automatically
provides a copy to all counsel of record via electronic service.
This, the 11th day of July 2022.

_______________________________
Thomas G. Bufkin
29
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES PLAINTIFF
v. CAUSE No. 22-cv-00286-EFP
MISSISSIPPI COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER, INC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS
and
MISSISSIPPI COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER, INC. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF
v.
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES COUNTER-DEFENDANT
MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
COME NOW, Defendants Nancy Whitten New and Zachary W. New (collectively, “New
Defendants”), through counsel, and submit their Motion to Stay Discovery or, Alternatively, for
Protective Order, pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 26. In support, the New
Defendants would show:
1. The Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS) has filed a 67-page
Complaint against 38 Defendants, including the New Defendants. [Complaint, Doc. 2]. The
Complaint alleges wrongdoing in transactions involving over twenty separate, distinct contracts. Id.
These transactions have been the subject of a criminal investigation, which is ongoing.
2. As a result of the criminal investigation, the New Defendants were indicted by the
Hinds County District Attorney. The New Defendants pleaded guilty before this Court to wrongfully
providing benefits to MDHS executives and facilitating spending directed by MDHS in order to
encourage continued funding. The New Defendants affirm their pleas and acceptance of
1
responsibility for their respective roles.
3. In the instant action, MDHS purports to pursue civil remedies, but its Complaint is
rife with far-reaching criminal theories and prosecutorial invective. The Complaint’s conclusory
allegations of criminality against the New Defendants, in particular, include allegations of
“fraudulent conduct,” “numerous false pretexts,” “sham” contracts, and “diverted TANF funds”
solely to “enrich wealthy individuals.”
4. Of greater concern, the Complaint alleges criminality by the New Defendants that
both overlaps with, but also exceeds, the scope of ongoing criminal proceedings against the New
Defendants. Specifically, MDHS alleges that the New Defendants: used “TANF grant funds received
from MDHS to invest substantial funds in ownership interests in both Prevacus and PreSolMD, in
the personal names of Nancy and Zachary New;” engaged in a “false pretext” by entering into a
lease agreement with JTS Enterprises LLC for a building that did not exist; agreed “to enrich Teddy
DiBiase by paying him millions of dollars in TANF funds;” and “falsely pretended that the $1.7
million investment of MDHS-derived funds in Prevacus was for the purpose of securing ‘clinical
trial sites’ to be located within Mississippi in order to promote an experimental anti-concussion drug
being developed by Prevacus.”
5. The New Defendants categorically deny these allegations. Nevertheless, the
allegations have been made in the Complaint, and certainly will be used in discovery by parties
hoping to find a scapegoat for their own misconduct. This strategy is not novel; indeed, it already has
begun.
6. For over a quarter-century, MDHS has enjoyed being the “single State Agency” with
exclusive rule-making authority over how to spend TANF dollars in Mississippi. It has crowed in
2
public filings that “Mississippi was the first to take advantage of the TANF Block Grant funds
available beginning October 1, 1996” and that its State Plans sought to “take full advantage of
TANF’s flexibility….” MDHS TANF State Plan (Effective 10/1/14 – 12/31/17), p. 3 (emphasis
added). Now, after 26 years of taking full advantage of TANF’s flexibility,” MDHS scurries to
define permissible TANF expenditures narrowly and paint itself as a victim.
7. MDHS is no victim, and the Court should be extremely skeptical of the motives
behind hyperbolic allegations of criminality in a civil pleading. The MDHS suit is not about
recovering TANF dollars; it is about MDHS trying to divest itself of civil liability for its deep
involvement in directing and approving unflattering expenditures. MDHS has doubled down on
criminal allegations against John Davis and the New Defendants, and is banking, literally, on that
doing the trick. However, John Davis is far from MDHS’s only official connection to TANF
spending.
8. MDHS is a huge bureaucracy. It acted, and still acts, systematically, through
hundreds of people. Each transaction alleged in the Complaint involved, directly or indirectly,
multiple senior officials acting on behalf of MDHS including, without limitation: Governor Phil
Bryant, Executive Director John Davis, Executive Director Chris Freeze, Deputy Executive Director
of Operations Jacob Black, Deputy Executive Director Garrig Shields, Deputy Executive Director of
Administration David Barton, Deputy Executive Director of Administration Chip Butler, Director of
Sustainable Change Ted “Teddy” DiBiase, Jr., Director of Transformational Change Brett DiBiase,
Director of Budgets and Accounting Chris Christmas, Director of Budgets and Accounting Bridgette
Bell, Director of Program Integrity Fredrick Ward, Director of Program Integrity Laketha Gilmore,
Director of Monitoring Win Girod, Director of Monitoring Randy Derrick, Director of Procurement
3
Services Nick Bridge, Director of Economic Assistance Larry Strebeck, Director of Funding Sandra
Giddy, General Counsel and Principal Deputy Executive Director Andrea Sanders, Executive
Attorney Sherry Johnson, Special Assistant Attorney General Sara Roberts, Special Assistant
Attorney General Joyce Hill Williams, Special Assistant Attorney General Earl Scales, Executive
Assistant Zola Haralson, and dozens of other MDHS executives, attorneys and staff (collectively,
“MDHS Executives”).1
9. MDHS and its political masters crafted TANF State Plans to allow virtually unlimited
spending of TANF dollars in Mississippi. MDHS is married to that history, and focusing on a single
public official - among many - will not relieve MDHS of liability.
10. Regardless, the New Defendants are in the crosshairs of both overlapping and new
criminal allegations as a result of the MDHS Complaint. The New Defendants have taken
responsibility for their roles, yet they continue to be thrust into the crossfire by powerful forces
fighting over political futures and tens of millions of dollars. The State wants to avoid liability and
embarrassment, the Feds want their money back, and the public wants answers.
11. The New Defendants will be substantially and irreparably harmed if forced to
participate in discovery amidst giants poised for what promises to be a no-holds-barred death match.
In other words, the New Defendants cannot fully and freely participate in discovery with further
criminal consequences constantly waived in their faces.
12. A stay of civil proceedings in deference to parallel criminal proceedings is in the
sound discretion of the trial court and should be granted when necessary to avoid “substantial and
irreparable prejudice.” Prescott v. Leaf River Forest Prods., 740 So. 2d 301, 304 (Miss. 1999) (see
1
The list in Paragraph 8 includes state officials involved in directing, handling, and/or approving the subgrants,
transactions, and/or expenditures placed at issue by the MDHS Complaint.
4
also United States v. Simcho, 326 Fed App'x 791, 792 (5th Cir. 2009)). United States v. Little Al, 712
F.2d 133, 136 (5th Cir. 1983) (citing SEC v. First Financial Group of Texas, Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 668
(5th Cir. 1981)).
13. In Mississippi, courts consider the following factors in determining whether a stay is
warranted: (a) the extent of overlapping issues between the civil case and the criminal case; (b)
whether the criminal defendants have been indicted and the proceedings remain ongoing; (c) the
plaintiff’s interest in proceeding versus any prejudice caused by a delay; (d) the defendant’s interest
and burden; (e) the court’s interest; and (f) the public’s interest. McCoy v. Yazoo City, 2014 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 177646, at 3 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 29, 2014).
14. In McCoy, the District Court, interpreting Mississippi law, granted a stay after
concluding that plaintiff satisfied only four (4) of the six (6) factors. In the instant proceeding, the
New Defendants satisfy all six (6) factors:
a. MDHS’s Complaint involves the same issues present in the ongoing criminal
proceedings and investigation. They do not merely overlap, but, as in McCoy,
the issues are “seemingly identical.” However, the MDHS Complaint also
contains new allegations.
b. The New Defendants have been criminally indicted, and proceedings are
ongoing. Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212 (1937) (a criminal
proceeding is not final until sentencing is complete).
c. MDHS’s interests will not be prejudiced unfairly by a relatively short delay,

as MDHS waited nearly three years to bring this civil action.
d. The New Defendants will be substantially and irreparably harmed by being

forced to proceed with discovery in a case where criminal allegations, both
old and new, have been made in the civil Complaint and parallel criminal
proceedings are ongoing.
e. The Court’s interests in effectively managing its resources, docket, and the
interests of judicial economy favor a stay. Concerns over self-incrimination
by the New Defendants and other Defendants will render any discovery
5
incomplete, require duplication, and will be fraught with motion practice and
other delays.
f. Perhaps most importantly, the public’s interest will be served best by full,
fair, and complete discovery into all issues in this case, including MDHS’s
extensive role in the misspending alleged in the Complaint. MDHS should
not be allowed to hide behind parallel criminal proceedings that (i) hamstring
the New Defendants in their civil defense, and (ii) shield MDHS from
discovery, responsibility, and its own liability.
ACCORDINGLY, Defendants Nancy New and Zach New respectfully request that the
Court:
1. Stay this matter and all related deadlines in their entirety pending final resolution of
criminal proceedings against Nancy New and Zach New, which shall occur at their
sentencings before this Court; or, alternatively,
2. Stay this matter and all related deadlines as to the New Defendants only pending final
resolution of criminal proceedings against Nancy New and Zach New, which shall
occur at their sentencings before this Court.
Further in the alternative, if the Court chooses to deny the Motion to Stay, thereby allowing
the case to proceed, and requires the New Defendants to participate in discovery despite parallel
criminal proceedings and allegations of criminality in the Complaint, the New Defendants
respectfully request that the Court grant the motion for protective, thereby quashing MDHS’s Notice
of Depositions [Doc. 69], and order the parties to confer in good faith and attempt to agree on a
proposed scheduling order that will (i) allow reasonable time for initial motion practice related to the
procedural posture of the case, the parties, and the claims; (ii) thereafter, allow reasonable time to
conduct written discovery prior to beginning depositions, and (iii) allow reasonable time for
discovery.
6
Finally, Nancy and Zach New respectfully request all other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted,
Thomas G. Bufkin, MSB# 10810
On behalf of Nancy and Zach New
Of Counsel:
Thomas G. Bufkin
Luke E. Whitaker
1076 Highland Colony Parkway
600 Concourse, Suite 125
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Telephone: 601.982.5011
Facsimile: 601.853.9540
tgb@carrollbufkin.com
lwhitaker@carrollbufkin.com
7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have filed the above and foregoing via MEC, which automatically
provides a copy to all counsel of record via electronic service.

_______________________________
Thomas G. Bufkin
8

Clawback File

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clawback File

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 25CI1:22-cv-00286-EFP Document #: 72 Filed: 07/11/2022 Page 1 of 29

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES PLAINTIFF

v. CAUSE No. 22-cv-00286-EFP

MISSISSIPPI COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER, INC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS

MISSISSIPPI COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER, INC. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES COUNTER-DEFENDANT

DEFENDANT NANCY NEW’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

GENERAL DENIALS AND DEFENSES

Requested” and Paragraphs (1)-(5) on pages 66 and 67 (“Damages” or “Recovery”).

attorneys and staff (collectively, “MDHS Executives”).

through the MDHS Executives.

with each transaction in the Complaint.

or contract with obligations arising under another subgrant or contract.

were not Permissible TANF Expenditures.

Defendant by MDHS, acting through MDHS Executives.

liable for Damages caused said illegal conduct.

MDHS Executives, was a co-conspirator and cannot recover Damages.

the MDHS Executives, that resulted, in whole or in part, in any Damages.

required by Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).

Executives, bars Recovery from Defendant.

would have occurred.

1. The averments in Paragraph 1 are not directed at Defendant, and, therefore, no

2. The averments in Paragraph 2 are not directed at Defendant, and, therefore, no

3. The averments in Paragraph 3 are not directed at Defendant, and, therefore, no

averments in Paragraph 4 are denied.

5. The averments in Paragraph 5 are not directed at Defendant, and, therefore, no

6. The averments in Paragraph 6 are not directed at Defendant, and, therefore, no

7. The averments in Paragraph 7 are not directed at Defendant, and, therefore, no

8. The averments in Paragraph 8 are not directed at Defendant, and, therefore, no

9. The averments in Paragraph 9 are not directed at Defendant, and, therefore, no

45. Paragraph 45 is not directed at Defendant. Therefore, no response is required. If a

response is required, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the averments. Therefore, they are denied.

46. Paragraph 46 is not directed at Defendant. Therefore, no response is required. If a

response is required, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the averments. Therefore, they are denied.

47. Paragraph 47 is not directed at Defendant, and, therefore, no response is required.

If a response is required, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the averments. Therefore, they are denied.

48. Paragraph 48 is not directed at Defendant. Therefore, no response is required. If a

response is required, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the averments. Therefore, they are denied.

49. Paragraph 49 is not directed at Defendant. Therefore, no response is required. If a

response is required, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the averments. Therefore, they are denied.

50. Paragraph 50 is not directed at Defendant. Therefore, no response is required. If a

response is required, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the averments. Therefore, they are denied.

56. Paragraph 56 is not directed at Defendant. Therefore, no response is required. If a

response is required, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the averments. Therefore, they are denied.

57. Paragraph 57 is not directed at Defendant. Therefore, no response is required. If a

response is required, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the averments. Therefore, they are denied.

59. Paragraph 59 is not directed at Defendant. Therefore, no response is required. If a

response is required, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the averments. Therefore, they are denied.

67. Denied as stated, including all averments in Paragraph 67 and Table 1.

incentive to John Davis and others.

cause MCEC to contract with and/or employ Adam Such.

September 2017 at an annual salary of $250,000 plus travel allowance.

an inducement or incentive to John Davis and others.