Talk about putting something in plain sight – take a look at the motive and memorandum State Farm filed today in opposition to the motion for reconsideration filed by the two disqualified Missouri law firms and see if you can figure out what you’re reading.
If you guess opposition to the Writ of Mandamus the two firms want to file with the 5th Circuit, say “ouch”
Now, what does that put in plain sight?The motion the two Missouri firms filed with Judge Senter was for reconsideration of his decision to disqualify them from representing the Rigsby sisters in the Qui Tam claim with an order entered under McIntosh.
…State Farm asserted this fact pattern as grounds for dismissal against lawyers who were not representing the McIntoshes, who were not entered in the case, who did not participate in the depositions, and who were never in a position (by virtue of a court order holding the case under seal) to notify the Court or take other remedial action in a case where they had no legal interest…
WHEREFORE, for good cause shown, Relators respectfully request that this Court reconsider its prior ruling disqualifying Relators counsel, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Relators respectfully request that they be afforded a hearing on this motion.
Consequently, the question before Judge Senter was an entirely different matter than State Farm addressed in its response – one that goes straight to an error State Farm committed when filing the motion to disqualify the two Missouri Firms under McIntosh.
Does Judge Senter need to hold the requested hearing? You bet. What he got today was contrary to the “big hint” he gave State Farm and Renfroe just weeks ago.
..it is my sincere hope that the type of normal, professional, and focused advocacy necessary to resolve the individual merits of the cases still outstanding will presently come to the fore.
Qui Tam is one of those outstanding cases and as deserving as any of normal, professional, and focused advocacy.