Lafayette Gatling says the city is barred from relief in a lawsuit because it breached a contract with him to lease to buy the Roanoke Rapids Theatre.
Attorneys for Gatling, who was ousted from the theater this summer, filed their response to the city’s lawsuit Wednesday.
Gatling, who is requesting a jury trial, claims the city’s breach excuses all performance by Gatling’s company, L&M Hospitality.
He claims much of the city’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. The clean hands doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or motion and asking the court for equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or unfair conduct relating to the subject matter of the claim. “The plaintiff has waived any claims against L&M by and through its own conduct so as to bar recovery herein,” the response says. “The plaintiff is estopped by its own conduct from asserting claims from the recovery sought herein.”
According to the response, “L&M’s performance was excused by the doctrines of impossibility, impracticability and frustration of purpose, commercial frustration. Some or all of plaintiff’s purported claims against L&M are barred by the doctrines of laches.”
The doctrine of laches centers on neglecting to do what should or could have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another.
In the document, Gatling asserts, “Although the theater had not succeeded in the past and had not yet shown itself to be financially viable, L&M and the city believed that project would succeed with the infusion of capital from L&M, combined with the city’s continued support for the project and the city’s best efforts to obtain additional financial assistance from governmental and quasi governmental sources.”
Gatling argues that since March, 2009, L&M, “Has expended tireless effort and resources to get the theater project off the ground. As evidenced by city council minutes, the then leadership of the city consistently and routinely praised L&M for its hard work and financial investment into the theater project and its effort to make the theater project a success for the citizens of Roanoke Rapids.”
Since last March, Gatling maintains, “L&M has invested millions of dollars in the property and theater in Roanoke Rapids.”
This year, however, “It became clear to L&M that the city had not and was not using any efforts — and certainly not its best efforts as required in the real estate purchase contract — to obtain any additional financial assistance for the theater project, including from any governmental or quasi governmental sources.”
Gatling claims he requested more support from the city to make the theater a success. “Among other things, L&M requested the city to honor its covenant that it would use its best efforts (to) obtain financial assistance for the theater and property.”
He claims the city refused and failed to do this. “The city’s failure to abide by and honor the covenant of agreements amounted to a material breach of the agreements and has caused L&M damages in an amount to be proven at trial.”
On the new city leadership elected last year, Gatling contends, “(They) did not want L&M to own or operate the theater. The new city leadership, upon information and belief, refused to support L&M in an attempt to create an environment where L&M’s plans for the theater would fail. The new leadership has failed to and continues to refuse to deal with L&M in a manner that is fair and in good faith.”
Gatling seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction stopping the city from entering into any agreement, contract or arrangement with any third party, “That would contravene or impede L&M’s interests in the property, including, but not limited to its equitable right of redemption.”
