The consulting firm that came up with Tooele County’s tourism campaign and brand — “Tooele Valley … so much, so close,” is suing the County.
Attorneys for State Street Partners, LLC filed a complaint against Tooele County with the 3rd District Court in Tooele on July 16, 2021.
The complaint claims that Tooele County breached two contracts with State Street Partners for marketing and tourism promotion services.
The complaint alleges that the County owes State Street Partners $355,161 in unpaid invoices for services and a termination pay out according to two signed agreements with the county dated in 2016 and 2018.
The terms of the 2018 agreement call for a $52,000 payment if the agreement is terminated without cause by the County, according to the complaint.
The complaint asks for the county to pay no less than $355,161, along with pre and post judgement interest, attorney fees, accruing late fees, and costs incurred in connection with the legal action.
The amount requested may be more, as the complaint also alleges that the County made false statements with malice about State Street Partners that caused them specific economic harm so they will also ask the court for punitive damages.
Tooele County filed their answer to State Street Partner’s complaint with the 3rd District Court on Sept. 10, 2021.
In their answer the County in general denied most of the allegations of the complaint and asserted that the agreements are not an enforceable contract because they were not signed by the “county” – only by one commissioner, Shawn Milne.
The agreements do not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of a contract with a government entity, there was no “meeting of the minds,” and some terms of the agreements are vague, according to the County’s attorneys.
To the extent the agreements might be enforceable, the County claims that State Street Partners have been paid for all that they are due.
State Street Partners was dismissed by the County for cause including; seeking payment for costs already paid, delinquent submission of invoices and statements, and failure to provide accounting of services performed, claimed the County.
State Street Partners maintained that the second agreement did not replace the first, so during 2019 and 2020, the county should have been paying State Street under both contracts, according to their complaint.
The County claims that the 2018 agreement replaced the 2016 agreement, so there would never have been a time when the two contracts were both in effect.
The County has asked for a jury trial.