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.
It certainly makes little sense that the Rigsby sisters’ response is item #376 on a docket that began when the case was filed September 1, 2006 but it’s not hard to figure out what Renfroe wants so badly.
Renfroe seeks the equitable remedies of both injunction and restitution for Defendants’ breaches of their contracts.
Neither is it hard to guess why in light of what the sisters know about “the enterprise” allegeded in Shows v State Farm, Renfroe and others.
Renfroe’s papers erroneously assume that Renfroe is entitled to an injunction simply because it proves a violation of a contractual confidentiality provision. In fact, Renfroe’s unclean hands (it is itself a defendant on the fraud alleged in the qui tam case), the equities and public policy that favor broad disclosure of the kind of serious fraud on the public that occurred in the wake of Katrina, and the broad and permissible disclosure of documents and information in the qui tam case all mean that Renfroe is not entitled to final injunctive relief, the only relief it seeks, even if it proves a technical confidentiality violation in some respect.
My personal opinion after reading these documents is that Renfroe v Rigsby is a “cat fight” over a trade with no secrets and an employment contract without employment attached on anything other than an “as available” basis.
Regardless of the outcome, a lot of time and money has been consumed that IMO would have been better invested in making certain the claims of the slabbed were fairly adjusted.