So, they sell Bud and crazy things just keep happening – check this court report

I tell you what, selling Bud really threw this country for a loop – and, as usual, the Coast was hit the hardest. Stands to reason if you figure that desire for a cold one is proportionate to the heat – inside the courtroom and out.

McIntosh has been the hot one for sometime – guess it’s all the back and forth between here and Alabama. Well, today, the “next” I’ve been looking for finally showed up on PACER. It’s the response from McIntosh to the Renfroe motion supporting State Farm’s objection to introducing out-of-state conduct – the subject of a recent post of mine.

My hat’s off to the Merlin Law Group for their response. Actually, my hat’s off because I’m ROFLMAO at their response

COME NOW the Plaintiffs and respond to Renfroe’s Objections to Out of State Evidence (Document 1224).

The Plaintiffs do not intend to offer any of the specified evidence of out of state conduct as evidence against Defendant Renfroe. To the extent that any of the evidence refers to Renfroe,the Court may create safeguards including, but not limited to jury instructions, that ensure that Renfroe is not prejudiced by the reference to it.

That’s it! Every word.

Merlin’s Tina Nicholson did what every lawyer on the Plantiff’s side – here and in Alabama – has been itching to do for almost three years. She filed a motion telling the Renfroe’s this is none of your business. You go girl!

Actually, Tina did go – straight over to Shows and and turn RICO into a revolving door for the Merlin clients and off-again-on-again Plaintiffs Ellen and Steven Summers. I picked up their unopposed motion to dismiss without prejudice a couple of days ago and today they’re back with a motion of withdrawal.

Why they filed the first, I don’t know, much less why they’re back. However, the Shows Plaintiff’s are lawyering up. Today’s report includes a notice of appearance of local counsel – Gulfport attorney Wynn Clark and Pascagoula attorney John G. Clark. Maybe Sop can provide background.

That takes us over to Alabama where things were crazy long before Bud was sold. Bellesouth just did a post on the related Scruggs v Zuckerman fee dispute. Scruggs and Keker – who no doubt need more than a Bud at the mention of Judge Acker – filed an eight-page Amended Record of Documents on Appeal.

I wish I were a lawyer so I could explain the significance of this document – as it strikes me that it’s considerable. If you pull up the link, you’ll read

Notice is hereby given that Richard F. Scruggs and The Scruggs Law Firm, P.A. (collectively, “Scruggs”), non-parties in the above named case, without waiving their objections to the jurisdiction of the district court over Scruggs, pursuant to Rules 10 and 11 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, as well as the applicable Eleventh Circuit Rules, do hereby designate the following as the record on appeal in Eleventh
Circuit case no. 08-13724-D:

…and that’s followed by, and I kid you not, a list of 67 documents – starting with June 27, 2008 Order at the top of the list and ending with #67, the December 8, 2006 Opinion. I can only hope that means the 11th will have all it needs to shut this sideshow down.

Meanwhile the show goes on with yet another Renfroe response whining about the Rigsby sisters. Ladies, you may need to see if you can’t just copy Tina’s go-away-this-is-none-of-your-business motion and then find yourselves some made-in-America Bud and hope Renfroe takes the hint.

7 thoughts on “So, they sell Bud and crazy things just keep happening – check this court report”

  1. Hahahaha! HA! That is pretty funny, Nowdy! Makes you wonder if there is a secret agreement where State Farm is paying all of Renfroe’s legal fees?

    That notice is just a notice but the Scruggs keep having to say they are non-parties to the suit, therefore the court in Alabama has no jurisdiction over them because I guess at some point if they don’t say that it could be presumed that they do if they don’t deny it. It’s like Rossmiller kept trying to tell me that Scruggs was a party to the suit because he had to show up to the hearing in December to argue that the court didn’t have jurisdiction. Judge Vinson didn’t buy it on the criminal contempt charge and my guess is that the 11th isn’t going to buy either.

  2. Is Renfroe even a named defendent in the McIntosh action? I’ve never read the initial petition and complaint and doing a little (very little) research I couldn’t find it. What I did see just showed SF ET AL. If they aren’t a named defendent, I agree 100% they have no stake in this case. If they are named, I can see them have an interest in everything that goes on with the case. I have to admit I know very little about the case itself and just group it with a few thousand other cases in MS/LA/AL that are part of the policyholder vs insurer Katrina litigation. Some are very justified cases, some have zero value to them, and the rest fall somewhere in between.

  3. Beau, regardless of who is or isn’t named, State Farm is the responsible party. It’s my understanding in cases like this, you name everyone in the chain.

    However, Renfroe filed the case(s) against the Rigsby sisters in Alabama – and that’s were most of the legal issues of their “standing” have been raised. Understandably so, as they firing and taking bullets for State Farm – which is probably short term gain but long-term pain any way you look at it.

  4. nowdoucit, I take it by your response that Renfroe is a named defendant? It is my understanding that every named defendant has a right to file discovery, take depositions, etc. I also know that plaintiff’s can and do list anyone who they think shares responsibility to the breach of contract/bad faith claim handling, etc, but one down side is they brought these people to the party, they then have to deal with them. I highly doubt that the plaintiff attorneys on this case agree with your assessment that “State Farm is the responsible party”, or that would make them also suing the co defendants ‘friviilous”. The name of the game is that you sue everyone who may have any responsibility for wrongdoing, and see who keeps up the fight and who settles out.

  5. I don’t differ with your take on “the name of the game” – but there is a “pecking order” and, if you watch closely, you’ll see Renfroe fighting State Farm’s battle. I suspect a combination trying to keep State Farm from making them the bad guy and goodwill so they can keep adjusting State Farm claims. I do believe plaintiff’s attorneys know the difference between who called the shots and who fell in line.

  6. I don’t read the response as “go away its none of your business”. It almost has to be Renfroe’s business since they are one of the defendant’s being sued. Renfroe had asked the court to limit evidence of out of state conduct & McIntosh have responded by saying they don’t plan to introduce any of that evidence.

    The Renfroe response in the Rigsby case is on a different issue and Rigsby can’t tell Renfroe to go away either since they are the plaintiff in that suit.

    Whether or not Renfroe is doing this for themselves, for State Farm or both may be open to debate/supposition, but I don’t see these pleadings/responses as terribly important on any major issue.

  7. Thank you. I didn’t see them as terribly important to any major issue either, justme, save one – they’re taking up time that needs to be spent getting this show on the road. I know Rigsby can’t tell them to go away but imagine they wish they would. I do think the issues of their standing raised earlier got the short sheet along with some other important issues. All of this is a real eye-opener for those of us who aren’t attorneys and it’s hard not to wonder how our legal system got to this point.

Comments are closed.