The Barriester’s Dream – Plaintiffs’ Oppose Scruggs’ Motion to Dismiss

He dreamed that he stood in a shadowy Court,
Where the Snark, with a glass in its eye,
Dressed in gown, bands, and wig, was defending a pig
On the charge of deserting its sty.

Plaintiffs Lee Young and Charles Mikhail, Young v Scruggs, have filed a because-we-say-it-isn’t-so-Opposition to Scruggs’ Motion to Dismiss. Admittedly, I’m not an attorney, so I may err in thinking a judge should not be asked to grade papers and give them back for correction; but…

…should this Court find that Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege a claim under RICO, Plaintiffs request leave to file an Amended Complaint…Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be denied. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request leave to amend their Complaint should the Court find any of Plaintiffs’ claims are insufficiently pled.

“You must know — -” said the Judge: but the Snark exclaimed “Fudge!”
That statute is obsolete quite!
Let me tell you, my friends, the whole question depends
On an ancient manorial right.

When a plaintiff files a becausewe-say-it-isn’t-so-Response, a memorandum of the supporting argument typically follows.  The  Plaintiffs in Young v Scruggs made their argument in an Opposition Brief.

“In the matter of Treason the pig would appear
To have aided, but scarcely abetted:
While the charge of Insolvency fails, it is clear,
If you grant the plea `never indebted.’

Law degree or not, I’ve read Plaintiffs’ Complaint and read, and read again, their Opposition Brief,  and have yet to be convinced of  Plaintiffs’ argument challenging the deduction of a share of the court-ordered payment to Luckey or the subsequent payment to Langston.

“The fact of Desertion I will not dispute;
But its guilt, as I trust, is removed
(So far as related to the costs of this suit)
By the Alibi which has been proved.

I’m even less convinced of Plaintiffs claim to a RICO standing as I’ve yet to identify the way what they call an enterprise engaged in or affected interstate commerce.  Did someone shop in Mobile or what?

Convincing me is not important but it appears that convincing Judge Starrett to grade papers is a must.  Meanwhile, what is left to wonder is why plaintiffs’ that were so generously rewarded for their work would file suit for such a comparably small amount.

“Transportation for life” was the sentence it gave,
“And
then to be fined forty pound.”
The Jury all cheered, though the Judge said he feared
That the phrase was not legally sound.

But their wild exultation was suddenly checked
When the jailer informed them, with tears,
Such a sentence would have not the slightest effect,
As the pig had been dead for some years.

Thus, the concept of direct injury refers to the relationship between the injury and the defendants’ action, not the plaintiff’s pocketbook. Firestone v. Galbreath, 976 F.2d 279,285 (6th Cir. 1992).

10 thoughts on “The Barriester’s Dream – Plaintiffs’ Oppose Scruggs’ Motion to Dismiss”

  1. Looks to me like Messers. Lufkin, Reeves & Mestayer are not intimidated in the least by Eastland’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on behalf of Scruggs. Guess the Judge will soon tell all of us who are the RICO “experts”, and who ain’t.

  2. Its “Lumpkin” Ashton and the ironies here are delicious. You see they were associated with the old Scruggs Katrina Group turned the Scruggless Katrina Litigation Group and were disqualified by Judge Senter from the ongoing litigation as a result of Dick Scruggs run in with Judge Lackey. I have heard, I believe reliably, that Jim Reeves is a good lawyer. I am not familar with the other 2 lawyers.

    Nowdy has been keeping up with these fee dispute cases so I’ll defer to her judgement. As I’ve been associated professionally with a criminal RICO prosecution and related civil RICO civil suits I’ll add these are not easy cases to make and from what I’ve seen I’m not convinced the plaintiffs have made their case for RICO either.

    Judge Starett has also appeared on these pages in the past in connection with State Farm suing Jim Hood as I recall.

    As we say on the finance boards “Time will talk” how this turns out.

    sop

  3. Ah! To err is human. Guess I’m too focused on Louseyanna SCUM-BAGS to pay proper attention to Mississloppy SCUM-BAGS. Still sign me: “Sometimes wrong, but never in doubt”. AROD.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *