In their response, Plaintiffs argue that the motion should be denied because amendment would be futile. Plaintiffs argue that the April 21, 2009, settlement did not release any claims with respect to State Farm…
Plaintiffs offer little in the way of argument or legal authority explaining why the amendment would be futile other than the conclusory statement that the release did not apply to Plaintiffs claims against State Farm…
In the absence of a compelling explanation for why the amendment would be futile, the Court finds that issue of the scope and application of the April 21, 2009, release should be allowed to proceed.
You also can’t make up what happened after Judge Walker granted State Farm’s dumb blond motion – but it took some Dolly boobs.
(“State Farm”), submits this Notice of Supplemental Evidentiary and Issue Submission by Means of Attachment to  Motion for Summary Judgment on Relators’ Claim for Retaliatory Discharge State Farm would show:
On June 18, 2009, this Court entered its  Order Granting Motion to Amend.
That same day, State Farm promptly filed its  First Amended Answer, Defenses and Counterclaim to Relators’ Personal Claims in Relators’ First Amended Complaint (“Amended Answer”).
State Farm’s Amended Answer pled a new affirmative defense, as follows:
The Rigsbys have released all claims against State Farm by virtue of their execution and delivery of that certain Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release dated as of April 21, 2009, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “A.”
The Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release dated April 21, 2009 (“Rigsbys/Renfroe Settlement Agreement”), Exhibit A, is an additional basis for the summary judgment requested by State Farm in ; and further is one that has only recently arisen.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 & 56, State Farm formally associates the Rigsbys/Renfroe Settlement Agreement with  and supplements said motion with that agreement as an additional basis for the summary judgment requested therein.
Additionally, also pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 & 56, as well as Miss. Unif. Dist. Ct. R. 7.2 and this Court’s (5/22/2009 3:20 p.m. CM/ECF-text only Minute Entry), State Farm incorporates by reference in further support of : ; ; its “Post-Summary Judgment Hearing Memorandum,” which was e-mailed to the Court’s Chambers e-mail address on June 8, 2009; as well as any forthcoming rebuttal served in reference to that submission.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, State Farm would show that for all the reasons set forth in  & , as well as those set forth and referenced herein, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and State Farm is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Rigsbys’ retaliatory discharge claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).
You just can’t make this stuff up; so, what accounts for all the fantasies of law? Judge Walker’s decision falls short of his reputation; but, regardless of the reason for this this disconnect, the Dolly boobs are riding high for now. However, breasticles are no match for…
You just can’t make this stuff up.