Another one! Order of Dismissal entered following Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Dick Scruggs and E.A. Renfroe

The disputes between the parties to this action were previously settled and dismissed by an order dated April 7, 2009. Following a reversal of the contempt findings against non-parties Richard F. Scruggs and the Scruggs Law Firm, P.A. by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Appeal Number 08-14716-DD, the remaining disputes have been settled between E. A. Renfroe & Company, Inc., and the above-referenced non-parties. Therefore, by and through their respective counsel of record, the undersigned do hereby jointly stipulate to the dismissal of all remaining issues and claims between them in this matter, with prejudice, each party to bear its own respective costs.

When the contempt findings issued by Judge Acker were vacated and remanded by Order of the 11th Circuit – 11th Circuit overturns Scruggs contempt citation! - the Court directed all remaining issues pertaining to Scruggs in the Renfroe case should be assigned to a different district court judge.  

BREAKING NEWS – Bossier moves for Judgment as a Matter of Law or New Trial

Pursuant to Rule 50, Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiff moves for judgment as a matter of law on all issues concerning contract damages on the grounds that the jury did not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find in favor of Defendant….

The law is clear that when considering a Rule 50 motion, “the Court must review all of the evidence from the record, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Poliner v. Texas Health Systems, 537 F.3d 368, 376 (5th Cir. 2008).  While this standard is a heavy one, in the case sub judice the evidence presented at trial compelled a finding in favor of the Plaintiff. The jury’s contrary verdict should not be allowed to stand.

This Honorable Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law after Defendant’s presentation of the evidence, but noted during the jury instruction conference that the motion probably should have been granted.

On blog and off, readers have consistently offered positive comments about Bossier’s counsel Judy Guice calling her an ethical, smart lawyer that fights for her clients. At least one has mentioned that putting clients first, not money, is what all lawyers are supposed to do.

Nothing is more telling of Guice’s client-first commitment to the practice of law than the Motion for Judgment As A Matter of Law or in the Alternative for a New Trial and the Memorandum of Support - both were filed Friday in Bossier v State Farm and followed by a relatedOrder from Judge Senter.

Guice’s Memorandum in Support of the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law put a compelling argument on the table:

Defendant bore the burden of proving that all of Plaintiff’s dwelling loss beyond that which had previously been paid resulted from storm surge flooding. It failed to carry this burden. Indeed, Defendant failed to offer a qualified expert witness on the issue of causation.

Whoda’ thought it – Rooting out fraud and safeguarding taxpayers from illegal conduct are among the Justice Department’s highest priorities

The Justice Department announced Thursday that it had secured nearly $2 billion from lawsuits filed under the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions in the year ending Sept. 30. And it promised to do more. Tony West, assistant attorney general for the civil division, said in a statement, “Rooting out fraud and safeguarding taxpayers from illegal conduct are among the Justice Department’s highest priorities.”

Given the importance being placed on False Claims Act cases, a decision out of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (pdf) on Wednesday should take on greater significance, especially for parties that end up settling but don’t admit to any wrongdoing. (To us, that seems to be pretty much everybody.) The 9th Circuit ruled that the False Claims Act does not preclude a settling defendant from seeking recovery and bringing claims against a third party for its alleged violations. h/t CLS

Yoo hoo, down here Mr. West, we’re waiting for you to walk that talk and join the Rigsby qui tam.  Meanwhile, Law.com has more on the 9th Circuit decision.

Magistrate Judge Walker – the Company man shows his hand in rush to trump Magistrate Judge Parker

As reported in Now, about that document State Farm produced for Judge Senter in Rigsby qui tam, Coast attorney Deborah Trotter of the Merlin Law Group is counsel for plaintiff’s in three similar cases currently before the Court, Judge Senter presiding.  Magistrate Judge Parker was assigned Lizana v State Farm and Magistrate Judge Walker the other two, Lebon v State Farm, and New Light Baptist Church v State Farm:

Defendant simultaneously filed three motions for protective order in response to Plaintiff’s Notices of 30(b)(6) Depositions, one of which was an expedited motion to quash and for protective order, for which the Lebon Court ordered Plaintiff on November 9, 2009, to Respond by 9:00am on November 10, 2009, during Hurricane Ida Warnings. As all three motions filed simultaneously by Defendant were similar in substance, context and argument, with the exception of the additional motion to quash in the Lebon case, Plaintiff’s counsel determined that in the interest of judicial economy and consistency that all should be responded to simultaneously and in combination. (Plaintiff’s Amended Response, Lizana)

Plaintiffs’ notices were filed simultaneously but State Farm’s motions were cleverly staggered:

• October 30: Lizana, Lebon and New Light Baptist Church plaintiffs each file Notice of 30(b)(6) IT Video Deposition and Issuance of Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum

• November 6: Lebon v State Farm: Motion to Expedite, Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Notice of 30(b)(6) IT Video Deposition and Issuance of Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum think and Motion for Protective Order by State Farm

• November 9:  New Light Baptist Church v State Farm: MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Notice of 30(b)(6) IT Video Deposition and Issuance of Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum by State Farm

• November 11: Lizana v State Farm: MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Notice of 30(b)(6) IT Video Deposition and Issuance of Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum by State Farm

Cleverly staggered – and cleverly planned to produce the following result:

MR-GO: Judge Duval finds Corps’ mismanagement flooded lower 9th in New Orleans following Katrina

With the world watching what the spinmasters of the insurance industry called the great New Orleans Flood,  the preventable disaster delivered  a horror beyond words.

“Judge Duval exposed 40 years of the Army Corps of Engineers’ gross malfeasance with regard to the operation and maintenance of the MR-GO,” said Pierce O’Donnell, a Los Angeles-based attorney and co-leader of the plaintiff’s legal team. “His decision is an extreme condemnation of the lack of concern for the safety of New Orleans and St. Bernard residents.”

"Duval said he was 'utterly convinced' that the corps' failure to shore up the channel doomed the channel to grow to two to three times its design width" (CainBurdeau)

Duval’s decision is also a fascinating read – all 189 pages of his Findings of Fact and the two-page Judgment.

Continuing with Mark Schleifstein, writing for the Times Picayune, the decision…sets the  stage for judgments against the govenment for damages by as many as 100,000 other residents, businesses and local governments in those areas who filed claims with the corps after  Katrina.

You be the judge – Impeachment hearing of Louisiana federal judge Thomas Porteous begins today UPDATED 2x

Congressional hearings on the potential impeachment of U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous of Metairie that begin today in Washington follow Porteous’ filing of a motion for TRO last Friday and a weekend whirlwind of legal documents flying back and forth before a federal court denied the motion yesterday.

The TRO motion and defendant’s response are among the linked documents that follow the brief background below.

Over the weekend, two readers sent links to the same story – one published in the Washington Post and the other in the Times Picayune - but anywhere you read the latest from Louisiana federal judge Thomas Porteous, it’s an incredible story:

Now, about that document State Farm produced for Judge Senter in Rigsby qui tam

so I may know the outer limits of the potential claims involved in this
action, I will require State Farm to submit, in camera, a list containing the name of the insured, the address of the property, and the amount of flood insurance paid, for all SFIP claims that meet the following criteria…

Let’s just cut to the chase here and consider whether the  list of State Farm policyholder claims the Company was Ordered to provide Judge Senter was worth the paper it was written on.

Lizana’s response to State Farm (Lizana v State Farm) gives cause for concern about the integrity of the claims file produced in discovery for any given case  and even more about the integrity of the list of claims meeting Judge Senter’s criteria.

On or about February 6, 2009, Plaintiffs served discovery requests to Defendant, which contained numerous requests for information regarding Defendant’s first party property claims handling procedures, the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs’ claims, and Defendant’s data storage systems, retention policies and procedures, and communication transmittals, among other requests seeking relevant information and data.

Fast forward to November 2009.

Eastland stands behind Motion to Dismiss – Greer files cross-claim for Patterson in Wilson v Scruggs

Big football weekend here in the land of the slabbed; but, no sports channel was covering the settlement game – and one is definitely playing in Wilson v Scruggs.

Almost simultaneously with their settlement with Team Scruggs, Team Wilson filed a weak response to co-defendant Steve Patterson’s Motion to Dismiss – an obvious incentive to settle.

Apparently, it was also incentive for Eastland to stick with the playbook while co-counsel Greer went with the legal equivalent of wild Rebel and filed across-claim for Patterson that suggests there is still more to learn about the money paid Ed Peters:

Patterson’s only involvement in the circumstances surrounding this action was