Pending legal action could potentially end relations between Subway and MSU.George Hightower, owner of four Subway locations around the area, including the MSU location, is in the process of filing a complaint with the Oktibbeha County Chancery Court.
The complaint seeks an injunctive relief from his location potentially being forced off campus.
Hightower filed a notice of claim with the Board of Trustees of the Institution of Higher Learning May 11, the complaint reads. The Board of Trustees denied the notice of claim on July 16.
According to the complaint, Hightower aims to recover actual damages from MSU and the Board of Trustees for breach of contract, tortuous breach of contract and tortuous interference with contract and business relations.
The complaint also seeks actual and punitive damages, along with attorney fees, from assistant vice president of student affairs Bill Broyles for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The complaint also lists Broyles as liable for breach of contract, tortuous breach of contract and tortuous interference with contract and business relations.
Karen Dempsy, Legal assistant to Waide & Associates, P.A., of Tupelo, said the complaint, which is not yet on the Oktibbeha County Chancery Court books, will continue to go forward once attorney Jim Waide signs off on the document.
Because of ongoing litigation, neither MSU nor Hightower or his representatives, Waide and Associates, P.A., of Tupelo, commented on the situation.
According to the complaint, Hightower received a bid to sell his four Subway locations to another Subway franchisee in March 2006. Bisbee, of Subway Development of Mississippi, initially approved of the sale. Hightower’s locations, modular unit, and inventory were valued at approximately $1.2 million.
In November 2006, Bisbee informed Hightower that the sale was no longer approved because MSU had terminated Hightower’s lease.
The complaint reads, “According to Bisbee, Defendant [Bill] Broyles terminated Plaintiff’s [Hightower] lease with MSU so MSU could get its own franchise. Bisbee told Broyles that Plaintiff was a family man and had built the business. Broyles replied that they did not care, they wanted the money. Bisbee told Broyles that what he was doing was wrong and dirty. Broyles replied they did not care.”
The complaint goes on to read, “Around January 2007, Plaintiff’s [Hightower] attorney, DeWitt Hicks, told Charlie Guest, MSU’s attorney, that had MSU contacted Subway, it would constitute tortuous interference with a business. Attorney Guest told Hicks that MSU had not contacted Subway, which was not true.”
Hightower relocated his campus Subway location to a modular unit near McCool Hall and Perry Cafeteria after renovations to the Colvard Student Union began.
According to the complaint, Broyles told Hightower that Subway’s reentry to the Union after remodeling was never guaranteed.
“Broyles admitted that he had previously made a mistake, and admitted that Plaintiff [Hightower] had a lease with MSU,” reads the complaint. “However, then Broyles told Plaintiff that if Plaintiff wanted back in the Union, Plaintiff would have to pay 12% of sales (a 50% increase) along with separate electrical, garbage, cleaning fees and the cost of moving the Subway back in the Union. Most importantly, Broyles told Plaintiff that he would be the only franchise not allowed to accept Money Mate (MSU student debit card), and would have to display a sign stating as such.”
According to the complaint, 40 percent of Hightower’s sales come from Money Mate.
In March 2007, Hightower learned that his Subway had to be off campus by July 31, 2007, even though his lease did not expire until 2009, the complaint reads.
“Even though MSU has not forced Plaintiff [Hightower] off campus yet, Plaintiff believes that the only reason it has not been done so is because the Union is several months behind in construction,” reads the compliant. “Plaintiff believes that once the union remodeling is completed, he will be forced to remove his Subway. Plaintiff asks this Court for injunctive relief to prevent this from happening. Further, MSU took away Plaintiff’s dining area and restrooms. Finally, MSU is forcing Plaintiff to pay rent on his own building.