Judge Acker issued and/or referenced five additional Orders related to his decision grant both Renfroe and Rigsby the partial summary judgments reported earlier in Breaking – Acker sends Renfroe v Rigsby to trial.
Three of the five were orders finding motions moot that were addressed in the Opinion Memorandum linked in the first post.
Because the evidentiary materials to which plaintiff and defendants have objected and have moved to strike have not been used by the court in reaching its conclusion under Rule 56, they are moot, and will be so designated by orders separately entered.
The following information compiled from the docket identifies each of the three motions declared moot.
10/29/2008 ORDER finding as moot Motion to Strike [Evidentiary Material,, Portions of Cori Rigsby’s Declaration by E A Renfroe & Company Inc.] Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 10/29/08. (SKB) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
10/29/2008 ORDER finding as moot Motion to Strike [Portions of Affidavit of Gene Renfroe Attached as Exhibit to Renfroe’s Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Alabama Trade Secrets Act by Kerri Rigsby, Cori Rigsby Moran.] Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 10/29/08. (SKB) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
10/29/2008 ORDER finding as moot Motion to Strike [Paragraph 7 of Affidavit of Jana Renfroe Attached as Exhibit “L” to Renfroe’s Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on It’s Claim under the Alabama Trade Secrets Act by Kerri Rigsby, Cori Rigsby Moran.]Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 10/29/08. (SKB) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
Also referenced in the Opinion Memorandum was his decision to dismiss the miscellaneous case as moot. I did not see a separate order on the docket when copying entries for my notes but Acker stated his intent adding this sentence to the paragraph discussing the motions now moot and quoted above.
The same is true of the entire discovery dispute transferred from Illinois, all of which relates to the ATSA claim.
In the fifth related order, Acker reconsidered an earlier decision for a jury trial.
10/29/2008 ORDER granting and ordering accordingly Motion to enforce defendants’ contractual waiver of jury trial and for reconsideration of order granting defendants’ motion for trial by jury. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 10/29/08. (SKB) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
His reasoning was incorporated in the Opinion Memorandum.
When this court granted the Rigsbys’s belated motion for trial by jury, it overlooked the provision in the employment agreement by which the Rigsbys waived their right to jury trial on all issues arising out of the employment relationship. Although this court remains enamored of the Seventh Amendment, if this particular employment agreement is enforceable in other respects, it must be enforced in all respects. Renfroe’s motion will be granted, and the case will proceed as a bench trial.
Acker issued a total of six orders related to Renfroe v Rigsby today along with a related opinion memorandum. Hopefully, I’ve covered all and posted them correctly.
You cannot contract away constitutional rights.
Meaning right to jury trial? Good catch! I was too stressed trying to get all the orders up to think about that.
It means Renfroe’s employment agreement would be a “contract of adhesion” – I learned about those from Rick’s comments.