The disputes between the parties to this action were previously settled and dismissed by an order dated April 7, 2009. Following a reversal of the contempt findings against non-parties Richard F. Scruggs and the Scruggs Law Firm, P.A. by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Appeal Number 08-14716-DD, the remaining disputes have been settled between E. A. Renfroe & Company, Inc., and the above-referenced non-parties. Therefore, by and through their respective counsel of record, the undersigned do hereby jointly stipulate to the dismissal of all remaining issues and claims between them in this matter, with prejudice, each party to bear its own respective costs.
When the contempt findings issued by Judge Acker were vacated and remanded by Order of the 11th Circuit – 11th Circuit overturns Scruggs contempt citation! – the Court directed all remaining issues pertaining to Scruggs in the Renfroe case should be assigned to a different district court judge. Continue reading “Another one! Order of Dismissal entered following Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Dick Scruggs and E.A. Renfroe”
Pursuant to Rule 50, Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiff moves for judgment as a matter of law on all issues concerning contract damages on the grounds that the jury did not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find in favor of Defendant….
The law is clear that when considering a Rule 50 motion, “the Court must review all of the evidence from the record, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Poliner v. Texas Health Systems, 537 F.3d 368, 376 (5th Cir. 2008). While this standard is a heavy one, in the case sub judice the evidence presented at trial compelled a finding in favor of the Plaintiff. The jury’s contrary verdict should not be allowed to stand.
This Honorable Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law after Defendant’s presentation of the evidence, but noted during the jury instruction conference that the motion probably should have been granted.
On blog and off, readers have consistently offered positive comments about Bossier’s counsel Judy Guice calling her an ethical, smart lawyer that fights for her clients. At least one has mentioned that putting clients first, not money, is what all lawyers are supposed to do.
Nothing is more telling of Guice’s client-first commitment to the practice of law than the Motion for Judgment As A Matter of Law or in the Alternative for a New Trial and the Memorandum of Support – both were filed Friday in Bossier v State Farm and followed by a relatedOrder from Judge Senter.
Guice’s Memorandum in Support of the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law put a compelling argument on the table:
Defendant bore the burden of proving that all of Plaintiff’s dwelling loss beyond that which had previously been paid resulted from storm surge flooding. It failed to carry this burden. Indeed, Defendant failed to offer a qualified expert witness on the issue of causation. Continue reading “BREAKING NEWS – Bossier moves for Judgment as a Matter of Law or New Trial”