It took two motions to dismiss all five counts against E.A. Renfroe in the Rigsby qui tam case. Apparently, dismissing Count V, allegations of retaliation against the whistle-blowers, does not require consent from the Department of Justice, unlike the Motion to Dismiss Counts I-IV:
Cori and Kerri Rigsby (the “Relators”), by and through their counsel, and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), move to voluntarily dismiss Counts I through IV of their Amended Complaint as to E.A. Renfroe & Company, Inc., Gene Renfroe, and Jana Renfroe (the “Renfroe Defendants”)…
The dismissal of these Counts against the Renfroe Defendants is in the best interests of justice and judicial economy. Specifically, Relators and the Renfroe Defendants have mutually agreed and request that (a) the Court, upon the United States’ consent, dismiss with prejudice as to Relators and without prejudice as to the Continue reading “BREAKING NEWS! Rigsby sisters move to dismiss defendant Renfroe”
Did you ever think you’d read a motion where the judge was asked to make one of the parties stick to their story?
I’d never heard of such until I read Plaintiffs’ Memorandum to Prevent Defendant Pinocchio’s Nose from Growing – shown on the MRGO Docket as Plaintiffs’ Memorandum to Prevent Defendant from Seeking to Prove the LPV Structures Were Not Properly Designed and Constructed and Did Not Perform as Expected.
Plaintiffs request that the Court not permit the Defendant to alter its consistent position throughout this litigation that the LPV structures were not negligently designed, constructed, or maintained and that they performed as expected.
Recently, the Government has claimed that only “bigger, stronger levees” would have prevented this calamity.
This appears to be a poorly disguised, 180-degree reversal prohibited by settled judicial estoppel principles. If the Government is doing an about-face, this Court should bar such gamesmanship and preclude any argument or evidence—whether by affirmative proof by defense witnesses or cross-examination of Plaintiffs’ experts—that the LPV structures were defective or did not perform as expected.
In a footnote to this text, the Plaintiffs provides documentation for their claim by quoting from page eight (8) of Defendant USA’s Trial Brief. Continue reading “SLABBED Daily – April 24 (a MRGO update)”
Nowdy has been doing yeoman’s work keeping Slabbed stocked with material in my absence but when she emailed me the recent case activity in Kuehn v State Farm I knew it was time to get back into the game. To bring everyone up to speed I highly recommend Nowdy’s two previous posts on this case which can be found here and here. The long story greatly shortened is the Kuehn’s invoked a policy provision called appraisal, a process involving three professionals that calculate the amount due under the policy in question. State Farm had “adjusted” the claim and paid the Kuehn’s the whopping sum of $10,765. The appraisers found $174,812 of covered damage. The Farm, through their Oxford based lawyers, went postal and now the case is before Judge Senter.
An interesting case twist came about during the deposition of State Farm appraiser John Minor in February of this year. During that depo it became very apparent State Farm lawyers H. Scot Spragins and Lucky Tucker had crossed the line from being legal advocates to agents of State Farm. When that fact became clear to Kuehn lawyer Earl Denham that such was indeed the case, Mr Minor’s depo was shut down with Mr Spragin’s acquiescence and State Farm hired new lawyers.
I wrote that short synopysis because I felt the need to refresh myself on the case. My memory’s reputation is impeccable but reading State Farm’s very curious case filings left me confused as to the events that lead us to this point – to the point where new State Farm lawyer John Banahan was misleading positing a rossmillerian fantasy of epic proportions. IMHO these filings are of the type that wastes valuable court time and short changes other policyholders that have now been waiting over three and a half years for their day in court.
First Banahan begins by trying to salvage the reputations of Hal “Scot” Spragins and Lucky Tucker and their Oxford based law firm Hickman, Goza & Spragins with a rambling 19 page nonsensical response to the plaintiff’s DQ motion. There is no text in the document worth quoting as the brief has no basis in the reality of this case as it relies on the notion that three appraisers determined the cause of damage rather than the extent of covered damage, an assertion State Farm’s own appraiser vigorously denied. Continue reading “Kuehn v State Farm: From a simple ass to an ass-clown. Team State Farm sets new lows courtesy of the insurance defense bar.”