Day: November 2, 2010

Without doubt one of the bigger sacks of shit we’ve run across: A Gretna Mentality Update.

“That’s crap,” Morgan said.

Spewing crap is something this Mark Morgan guy evidently knows something about. The problem, of course, with being a lying sack of shit is no one believes anything such a person says as there is no basis for trust or, as we say on Slabbed, Morgan is so full of shit a turd comes out of his mouth everytime he opens it.

I’m beginning to catch on to this Gretna way of doing things.

sop

“an olive Branch”? Denenea and Branch agree to consolidate qui tam cases – call for decision on Rigsbys’ Allstate claim!

It’s way too late to do more than link the two responses in oppositions to Allstate’s attempt to dismiss ex rel Branch v Allstate, et al and ex rel Denenea v Allstate and quote the pertinent text from both – sorry, but one thing Rossmiller got exactly right is that “work” really is “the curse of the blogging class”.

ex rel Denenea v Allstate: Relator’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Allstate Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss…

The relator intends to consolidate this matter with the Branch relator, which may avoid additional judicial expense as to any potential conflicts on first to file issues between Denenea and Branch. There still exists the issue of first to file as to the present case and Rigsby; however, that issue is either resolved under recent jurisprudence, or should be addressed on a full hearing on the merits of the status of the Rigsby case pertaining to Allstate. The remainder of the motion should be denied for the reasons stated, or that the motion should be converted to a full motion for summary judgment allowing for the full supporting facts to be submitted for this courts consideration. The relator therefore suggests that the motions filed by Allstate be denied.

ex rel Branch Consultants v Allstate, et al Branch Consultants’ Consolidated Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss of Defendants Allstate Insurance Company and Pilot Catastrophe Services, Inc.

Branch notes that Allstate has not taken the position that the later-filed Denenea case has preclusive effect as to this action. Thus, Branch has made no attempt to brief the issue here, and the Court should not entertain any such argument in Allstate’s reply or at oral argument. Branch also notes that, with regard to contents coverage, it does not believe there is overlap between the Denenea allegations and this action because Branch’s claims do not concern that coverage. Branch nonetheless is in favor of consolidating Denenea with this action and anticipates filing a motion to that end.

Definitely, something to think about and, as time permits, write much more about the points made in both opposition briefs.