Although their shared name is sufficient reason for thinking the two brothers Darryl are one in the same, an examination of available evidence reveals two distinctly different individuals. In this third of an intended four-part series, SLABBED examines the evidence available on the most recently unsealed Katrina qui tam case, ex rel Denenea v Allstate – a distinctly different case from the other also named Allstate, ex rel Branch Consultants v Allstate.
In an attempt to convince the federal courts in Louisiana these two qui tam cases are one in the same and both should be dismissed, Allstate has launched what can best be described as a “wool-over-the-court’s-eye scheme“. A key element of the scheme and the centerpiece of Allstate’s defense is, of all things, the qui tam case filed in Mississippi, ex rel Rigsby v State Farm – perhaps because several years ago Denenea caught the yarn the Company was trying to spin and unraveled their knitting right in front of none other than the federal district judge assigned to Denenae’s qui tam case, Judge Sarah Vance.
Every bit of yarn in Allstate’s knitting bag was tossed at Denenea in the Company’s Motion to Dismiss but Denenae’s case has a needle that makes it as distinctly different from both Branch and Rigsby as one “brother Darryl” is from the “other brother Darryl”:
THEREFORE, the United States files this notice that it is not intervening at this time, reserving its right to seek leave intervene at a later date for good shown pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(3), and further, MOVES THE COURT to unseal all filings made to date, except for the United States’ applications for an extension of the seal and supporting memoranda and applications for partial lifting ofthe seal and supporting memoranda remain under seal because these documents contain information concerning the status ofthe Government’s investigation and the future direction of the investigation and were provided to the Court alone for the sole purpose of evaluating whether to grant the Government’s requests.
Although the United States is not intervening at this time, it respectfully refers the Court to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), which allows the relator to maintain the action in the name of the United States; providing, however, that the “action may be dismissed only if the court and the Attorney General give written consent to the dismissal and their reasons for consenting.” rd. Therefore, the United States requests that, should either the relator or the defendant propose that this action be dismissed, settled, or otherwise discontinued, this Court solicit the written consent of the United States before ruling or granting its approval.
All other contents of the record, namely the United States’ applications and memoranda to extend the seal and its applications and memoranda to partially lift the seal, Rec. Docs. 4, 6, 8,10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25 and 27, remain under seal and not be made public or served upon the defendant…(emphasis added)
The government has filed eleven – yes, 11 – applications to keep the Denenea complaint under seal. In other words, evidence not only supported an ongoing investigation, the continued sealing of those applications indicates the government is continuing its investigation.
Ashton sensed there were “things ‘going on’ in the Rigsby case “that we don’t know about or fully understand” and got a shout out from Mr. CLS on the ALL Finance Board – Amen, Brother. It may very well prove to be that one of those “things ‘going on'” is also the reason the government’s investigation of Allstate is continuing.
Judge Vance reset the date for the Hearing on Allstate’s Motion to Dismiss and the 19th of November is the day. Mark it on your calendar as the outcome of this hearing has the potential to impact both ex rel Branch Consultants v Allstate, et al and ex rel Rigsby v State Farm. Stay tuned as the brothers Darryl make the last stop and meet the sisters Rigsby.