Tag: Judge Acker

Breaking! 11th Circuit Court of Appeals GRANTS Scruggses' Petition

You all might remember Scruggs and Scruggs Law Firm petitioning the court for an appeal of Judge Acker’s Order on civil contempt sanctions. On Friday last, the Court granted their petition to appeal. Just the fact that they have agreed to review is cause for speculation since the court is particular about which cases it grants to review. And given the antics of Judge Acker, I hope they give it a thorough review.

With that and the Supremes reviewing the Jones case to decide whether the sides need go to arbitration, maybe Scruggs can get a little justice even while imprisoned.

Scruggs comes to the Rigsbys' rescue

In court filings today, Scruggs and Scruggs Law Firm moved the court to release the security to satisfy the civil contempt charges.

In order to prevent the accumulation of any additional interest on the judgment, without waiver of the pending appeals and solely to pay the civil contempt sanction awarded in this action, Scruggs requests that the Court direct the Clerk to release to Renfroe the amount of $65,000, plus the interest having already accrued at the interest rate of 2.15% per year (as set out by this Court in the June 27, 2008 Order) from the date of the judgment until today, and release the remainder of the funds back to the Bainbridge, Mims, Rogers & Smith, LLP Trust Account.

But they are not waiving their right to appeal nor their right to recover the money if he wins on appeal.

Although Scruggs will comply with the Court’s order that the civil contempt judgment be satisfied immediately, Scruggs expressly reserves the right to prosecute its pending appeals of the civil contempt judgment to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and does not waive any of its defenses. See, e.g., Graddick v. Newman, 453 U.S. 928, 945 n.1 (1981) (“Since property transferred or money paid involuntarily pursuant to a judgment can be recovered, execution of the lower court’s
judgment pending appeal normally does not render the case moot. These cases represent merely a particularization of the rule that issuance of a court’s mandate or obedience to its judgment does not bar timely appellate review.”); County of Dakota v. Glidden, 113 U.S. 222, 224-25 (1885) (“There can be no question that a debtor against whom a judgment for money is recovered, may pay that judgment, and bring a writ of error to reverse it, and if reversed can recover back his money.”); Ferrell v. Trailmobile, Inc., 223 F.2d 697, 698 (5th Cir. 1955) (“We think that the rule has long been established in the federal courts that payment of a judgment, of itself, does not cut off the payor’s right of appeal.”).

Since this release of the money would satisfy the contempt sanctions, I would think that the Rigsbys are off the hook from the court’s latest order on the matter.

Unless the judgment is paid within fourteen (14) days, the court will consider denying
defendants’ motions for summary judgment as a sanction.

Good job, Mr. Scruggs! Good job!

Sweet Home Alabama?

I don’t think Dickie will think so. Scruggs filed an emergency motion for relief (exhibits). He didn’t get it. Remember he was ordered by Judge Walker in McIntosh v. State Farm to produce documents. He asked for reconsideration of that order but was denied. He asked Judge Acker for Injunctive Relief:

[W]ithout waiving claims relating to the jurisdiction of this Court over Scruggs, respectfully move this Court for relief from the Preliminary Injunction and Protective Order issued by this Court on December 8, 2006 (Doc. 60)1, for the limited purpose of complying with an order issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. This motion is styled as an “emergency motion” because Scruggs has been ordered to respond to the Mississippi order by July 7, 2008, and Scruggs seeks relief from this Court prior to that time. Continue reading “Sweet Home Alabama?”

Acker threatened Rigsby Qui Tam with “free legal advice” almost a year ago

…If this case [Renfroe v Rigsby] goes to trial on this schedule with no amendment and no counterclaim, which would cover that, and this[Qui Tam] case reaches a conclusion by dispositive order and is entered, it will preclude anything —

Now, that’s just my’ free legal advice, because I can’t control what another judge does in another case. But I can give you some free legal advice on both sides, that the first one of those cases that gets to trial and resolves the question of who did what to whom as between the Rigsbys and Renfroe — Now, let me add this dimension…

…I predict that unless you, not I, because I can’t — I’m not calling the judge down in Mississippi and begging for him to transfer something to me. But if he, whoever it is, that’s got that case down there, the qui tam case, manages it or mismanages it, whatever, by the time that case is over, this case will have already been over. And this case will control the outcome of the retaliation claim down there one way or the other.

Yep, the mad-as-a-hatter Judge Acker really said that – and here’s more of what he said during the Status Conference on Renfroe v Rigsby he held on August 29, 2007 Continue reading “Acker threatened Rigsby Qui Tam with “free legal advice” almost a year ago”