Typical State Farm lawyering files motions with points they want to call to the attention of the Court and the public – a strategy similar to Palin’s, described somewhere as producing a convincing but not coherent performance. (wink not included)
The most recent example is the Motion for Leave to file Excess Pages related to their Rebuttal of the Rigsbys Response to their Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) FRCP.
The Motion for Excess Pages requests that State Farm be granted eleven additional pages, which would permit State Farm a Rebuttal in support of its Motion to Dismiss not exceeding a total of fifteen pages in length.
To date, the Rigsbys have not responded in opposition to State Farm’s Motion for Excess Pages. However, State Farm acknowledges that under the Local Rules, unless their response deadline is expedited by the Court, their response, if any, is not due until October 3, 2008.
State Farm’s Rebuttal in Support of its Motion to Dismiss is due this Thursday, October 2, 2008 – one day before the Rigsbys’ deadline to respond to State Farm’s Motion for Excess Pages.
Accordingly, State Farm is in a procedural box. It must submit its Rebuttal by this Thursday, but does not have Court permission to utilize more than the four pages it has remaining under Miss. Unif. Dist. Ct. R. 7.2(E)’s thirty five page cumulative limit.
State Farm notes that the Rigsbys did not file their response in opposition to its Motion to Dismiss until 10:00 p.m. CDT on September 15, 2008. Of course, State Farm needed to receive and review the Rigsbys’ response in order to properly evaluate its position. State Farm filed its Motion for Excess Pages the very next day, on September 16, 2008.
Accordingly, State Farm did not intentionally put itself in this procedural box; rather it is one caused by the interaction of the Rules and the timing of the Rigsbys’ filing.
Accordingly, State Farm failed to mention the impact of their own history of 11th hour timing to the Continue reading “Convincing but not coherent – State Farm files Rebuttal to Rigsbys Response”