Day: July 3, 2009

SLABBED Daily – July 3

While I’m waiting on mine with mint and lime, let’s pick up the transcript of the oral arguments in Corban v USAA and go in a different direction than we did in SLABBED Daily yesterday.

Justice Pierce brought up the subject of payment for flood damage with both parties.

JUSTICE PIERCE: Real quick, in your brief, you said that you want to use the flood damage receipt by the Corbans to meet your burden [of proof]. How do you propose to do that?

MR. COPELAND: Well, when we talked about this before, one point that did not come up – it came up, but not at the same time – it is, as we clearly accept, if the Corbans come in on the structure — keep this on the structure. If the Corbans come in and say, ‘We have  suffered a direct physical loss, ‘ and it’s a request for admission, we would readily admit that. We know they did. And it’s a tragedy that it happened. They can sit back down.

So really we come in with the burden of proof with that established, as we accept the burden of proof. And where that is an issue, and where it comes up in the courtroom is when you get experts that want to say that there was no flood damage.  And it simply does not benefit the pursuit of justice for a party, whether it be USAA or the Corbans, or anyone else, to make a claim and accept $350,000 in flood damage,  and then put on a paid witness to say that that did not occur. That simply does not benefit the trying to find  what’s true and right.

There has to be a name for what Mr. Copeland is describing other than “slimball”.  Let’s see if Judy Guice comes up with it when she answers the same question. Continue reading “SLABBED Daily – July 3”

up their sleeve or in their briefs – State Farm comes up with another Eddie Haskell motion in Rigsby qui tam

Due to the nature of this Motion, Defendants are not submitting a  separate memorandum of authorities.

That’s probably a good idea since the “nature of this Motion” is Eddie Haskell.  The title alone grates: Defendants’ Joint Motion to Require All Parties to File their Previously Submitted Respective Post-Hearing Briefs in the Record.

At the direction of Judge Senter, the Rigsby sisters and the State Farm defendants submitted briefs  directly to Judge Senter following the recent qui tam hearing and this motion seeks to have all parties post their briefs on the record because:

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of this Action at the trial court level, there likely will be an appeal by one or more Parties and “[u]nder this Circuit’s general rule, arguments not raised before the district court are waived and will not be considered on appeal unless the party can demonstrate ‘extraordinary circumstances.’”

Further, as a general proposition, the Fifth Circuit “is barred from considering filings outside the record on appeal….” Accordingly, it is especially important to all Parties’ respective ability to prosecute a potential appeal to have all post-hearing summary judgment briefs in the record.

Think chalk scratching  a blackboard and read on: Continue reading “up their sleeve or in their briefs – State Farm comes up with another Eddie Haskell motion in Rigsby qui tam”