Along with the truckload of State Farm motions in the qui tam cases that I’ve yet to post and the orders in McIntosh that I’ve just posted, there are a handful best tossed in a single catch-all post.
In Shows v State Farm, Magistrate Judge Linda Alexander issued an Order granting the pending Motions to Sever, incorporating the language requested in Renfroe’s related unopposed motion, and authorized the transfer of these cases to Judges Walker and Senter.
The motions are unopposed by any party, subject to the understanding that E. A. Renfroe & Company, Inc., Gene Renfroe, or Jana Renfroe, shall not be named as defendants in the amended complaints filed by the Summers and Simpson, and that the amended complaints do not include a RICO conspiracy or civil conspiracy claim relating to their Hurricane Katrina insurance claims. The Court finds that the motions are well advised and should be granted.
Is the ease with which it appears these plaintiffs dropped claims against Refroe an indication of anything other than the nature of the claims? Something to think about – particularly if you’re one of the Renfroes.
The leading candidate for snark-of-the-week thus far is State Farm’s Response to the Rigsby’s motion requesting an extension of time to prepare a response to various State Farm motions.
…no discovery is necessary “in order [for the Rigsbys] to prepare responses, rebuttals, or supporting memoranda,” to the pending dispositive motions.
The raw arrogance took my breath away as did the the reasons set for earlier in other documents that I’ll cover in my next post. Meanwhile, State Farm wasn’t done with their “agreement” to a brief extension.
Given that State Farm’s dispositive motions have been pending for almost five months without a response and that the Rigsbys have known of their response deadlines since August 7, 2008, State Farm does not believe the Rigsbys’ request for an extension of time is consistent with this Court’s expressed intent “to reach the merits of all the pending motions as soon as it is practical to do so.”
Despite the above and while State Farm maintains its opposition to the Rigsbys’ proposed discovery, State Farm does not oppose a brief extension of the specific deadlines set forth in this Court’s August 7, 2008 Scheduling Order.
I’ll ask the obvious question: WTF could they have done in those five months since they’re not lawyers and had none? Delusional distortion, btw, is what I call filing a response to suggest such – particularly when State Farm knows these dispositive motions were filed as a part of their legal strategy to disqualify the Rigsbys attorneys.
Next up, McIntosh with a Order issued by Judge Senter formally dismissing Forensics Engineering as a defendant. Last, but by no means least, is a Renfroe Reply opposing the Rigsbys response in opposition to the Renfroe motion to compel depositions.
Renfroe was prevented from resuming the Rigsbys’ depositions until now for the same reasons that State Farm Fire & Casualty Company was prohibited from doing so: Renfroe did not receive the first of the documents recovered from Cori Rigsby’s computer until August 2008.
The parties and the Rigsbys agreed at the prior depositions that Renfroe’s questioning of them was not concluded at the time of the recess of their November 19-20, 2007 depositions and that the depositions would be resumed by Renfroe at a later date and time. See Exhibit 3 attached hereto.
Maybe so; but, what is it that State Farm counsel did that Renfroe counsel didn’t do? Who had the job of making the court aware? Someone got State Farm’s name in the hat, so to speak.
It’s simply intellectually dishonest, IMO, to claim the Rigsbys’ opposition completely fails to address any of the salient points raised in Renfroe’s emergency motion when clearly they did. Failing to give someone the answer they want is not failing to address the points. It seems to me the salient point someone failed to address was filing the appropriate motion in a timely manner.
That’s all I’ve caught for this catch-all update. Post on the larger State Farm filing in the qui tam case coming next; but, not coming shortly as there’s a lot to cover.