Day: July 10, 2008

…and even "curiouser" – Acker issues strangest order yet

The Order issued today starts out with notice that tomorrow’s hearing is cancelled – and aside from the somewhat disconcerting news that he’ll decide on the Summary Judgment based on his reading of the motions, this seems like a routine matter.

The parties having waived oral argument on their crossmotions for summary judgment, the oral argument scheduled for July 11, 2008, is CANCELLED, and the cross-motions are hereby taken under submission without oral argument.

However, that’s just the first paragraph and the kicker comes next.

More than thirty (30) days having elapsed since the judgment for compensatory civil contempt was entered against defendants, requiring them to pay the judgment within thirty (30) days, and defendants having neither paid the judgment nor filed a timely notice of appeal, plaintiff is free to execute on the judgment or otherwise to proceed with collection. Unless the judgment is paid within fourteen (14) days, the court will consider denying defendants’ motions for summary judgment as a sanction.

What makes this Order his strangest yet is the Rigsbys sister’s Motion to Stay Civil Sanctions is sitting on PACER – filed on June 25th no less.  What else could a Motion do but sit on the docket when the judge doesn’t seem to know it’s there. Continue reading “…and even "curiouser" – Acker issues strangest order yet”

Curiouser and curiouser…better read it first: Renfroe v Rigsby – the latest round

With a hearing on the Renfroe’s motions for Summary Judgment set for the 11th, Renfroe has filed a response to the Rigsby’s latest motions on each – the Alabama Trade Secrets Act and Breach of Employment Contract.

Here’s a summary of what’s taking place taken from the Rigsby sister’s amended brief in Response on Breach of Contract

On October 31, 2007, Renfroe filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On December 3, 2007, Defendants filed a brief in opposition to Renfroe’s motion and in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.

Renfroe filed a response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support on December 10, 2007. Defendants then filed a reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment on December 21, 2007.

Renfroe claims it has

previously established that Defendants’ breaches of contract have caused irreparable harm to Renfroe’s reputation in the industry, among its clients, and among the pool of independent adjusters.

With Jana Renfroe’s deposition cited as evidence, the Rigsby sisters make this counter claim.

Renfroe’s reputation has been enhanced, not injured, by the Rigsbys’ disclosures and prevention of fraud. (See Jana Renfroe Depo. I, at 353:1-3).

However, given the claims made in the RICO complaint, it hardly makes sense to blame the Rigsby sisters for any “damage” to the company’s reputation – and, at this point, I couldn’t agree with Alice more about this wonderland of justice known as Alabama.

It would be so nice if something would make sense for a change. Continue reading “Curiouser and curiouser…better read it first: Renfroe v Rigsby – the latest round”