Some things we just aren’t meant to understand; and the joint motion and joint stipulations filed in the Renfroe-Rigsby Alabama case must be among them – Lord knows I’ve tried!
First, the two parties filed a Joint motion to continue pre-trial conference and set briefing schedule.
The Court has previously granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff, E. A. Renfroe & Company, Inc., (“Renfroe”) on Defendants’ liability for breach of contract, set the issue of damages on the contract claim for trial and set a pretrial conference for January 15, 2009.
Having agreed that the remaining issues may be resolved by motions without trial, the parties jointly request that the pretrial conference be continued and a briefing schedule be ordered.
The parties have stipulated that the damage issues can be most efficiently adjudicated by motion without need for trial. The parties waive their rights to a trial on damages under the contract claim and stipulate to have the issues of Renfroe’s entitlement to recovery decided on motions.
Renfroe and Rigsby made that stipulation and more in Joint stipulations of the parties filed with the motion. The document repeats the stipulation the damage issue can be resolved by motions and adds:
All parties stipulate as follows for the purposes of this litigation…The parties stipulate that Defendant Cori Rigsby was paid $221,529.28 ($146,529.28 in 2006 and $75,000.00 in 2007) by the Scruggs Law Firm and Defendant Kerri Rigsby was paid $221,343.42 ($146,343.42 in 2006 and $75,000.00 in 2007) by the Scruggs Law Firm. These amounts accurately state the known amounts paid by the Scruggs Law Firm directly to the Defendants.
Excepting only materiality and relevance, the parties waive all objections to the admissibility of these amounts and stipulate that these amounts are accurate and authentic, and are sufficient proof of the known amounts, with no further evidence required. The Defendants expressly reserve the right to object to and challenge the materiality and relevance of these amounts, including but not limited to whether these payments are recoverable as damages in a breach of contract case and whether such damages, if allowed, were proximately caused by the breach.
The parties stipulate and affirm that this joint stipulation shall have the effect of conclusively establishing proof of the facts and matters set forth herein for the purposes of this litigation.
Were I either party, I’d rather eat snakes than see Judge Acker again – not to mention State Farm has been poised to throw Renfroe under the bus for months now – and with that in mind, I offer as comment:
Maybe I’ve been here before
I know this room, I’ve walked this floor
…not a victory march
it’s a cold and it’s a broken Hallelujah
[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.771690&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]
The court having granted MSJ in favor of Renfroe and against Rigsbys, there is no trial to have on liability. Only question is what damages they can recover – Renfroe wants the money Scruggs paid to Rigsbys along with some portion of their expenses in bringing the action/as prevailing party. What damages Renfroe can recover appears to be a legal issue, not a factual issue, so the judge decides it either way. They stipulate to facts as to amounts paid to Rigsbys by Scruggs and other issues which allows them to avoid need to present testimony on those topics. So, instead of several days selecting jury, presenting evidence & testimony etc., they submit motions and stipulations to judge a get a decision.
At least thats the way I read it.
Thanks for the explanation Justme. I boiled it down more succiently for Nowdy. Acker is readying to crush the Rigsby sisters.
When this is done and the music stops, there will be some folks in Alabama wish they had a chair. IMHO.
sop
It was going to be bench trial before Acker…”why shave my legs for this”