Update: Post amended as noted below
The heading was amended to add “at this time”. I was not in the courtroom; two people who were in the courtroom tell me that this is what occurred:
The court ruled that ordinarily, the case would go to arbitration, that the prior actions by the Scruggs defendants (which was ignoring the Jones demands for arbitration) were not sufficient to waive arbitration, but that the Jones motion for sanctions (which argued that the court should sanction Scruggs by entering a default judgment granting the Jones plaintiffs a right to their claimed fee) was not an arbitration matter and he was going to hear that motion before any referral to arbitration. The court said there will be no fact hearing before February 25th (the date of the criminal trial) but could be legal arguments.
The judge presented an opinion which he had not yet signed. He has since signed it.
Changes: The original post noted that one of my sources found the hearing confusing; the post has been substantially edited based on another eyewitness and to clarify and to include the court’s opinion on arbitration.
Once again another NMC scoop. If we email you pardner will you maintain our identities in strict confidence?
Cowboy, you can rest assured on that score, I’ll vouch.
Now then, just in from Alyssa:
Hot ZIGGY, jim — here we go after those circles and cycles!
Alyssa’s comment will make some theorizers-in-comments very happy campers.
I’ll warrant, NMC.
NMC, if you have a few spare minutes here, could you “English” some of the Legal in this post for us a leetle more? (You or any lawyer who has time? Much thanks.)
Hey Lotus it might be a good idea for someone in the “know ” to do us dummies an “Org. – Chart”….. What ya thank?
What I think, Stormy, is YER RIGHT.
And somebody has.
And jes’ soon’s we get it together, I’m slappin’ it up here for us.
“…That Plaintiffs failed to initiate arbitration as required by AAA rules…”
Stunning, simply stunning to reach this point and have the Judge point that out.
nowdoucit, as a friend of mine puts it, “Mind, meet Boggle.”
Really basic question: Who are the plaintiffs in this excerpt:
" "That Plaintiffs failed to initiate arbitration as required by AAA rules " "
Thanks,
LD
Jones, Funderburg– Tollison’s client, who were suing Scruggs and his fellow Katrina groupies.
Well Lotus it will be most interesting to say the least. Balducci = buried bodies, P.L. Blake = another damn graveyard. I just wonder if Dickie and/or P.L. find their lost memory regarding their agreement?
IMHO, it looks like the court deferred the decision on arbitration pending the outcome of the criminal case, at which time he could grant the motion for sanctions and, as a sanction, make the finding that the defendants have waived the arbitration clause.
Kinda/sorta, NAAS– there was some backpedaling about whether the motion to continue filed in the criminal case changed the judge’s ruling, and the judge made clear he’d hear legal arguments before the 24th of Feb. The soft delay seemed responsive to the argument by the Scruggs lawyer that Scruggs not be forced to make the decision of whether to testify or assert the fifth amendment while facing the criminal prosecution.
This ruling certainly sucked the wind out of Scruggs, et. al. To think, the case would be headed to arbitration (their preferred method of resolution) save the sanctions hearing which arose from the attempted bribe of Judge Lackey in which they tried to have him enter an order sending the case to arbitration. Wow.
Not to mention the criminal ramifications. All I can think is “idiots.”
You’re right, Around Town.
Jones, Funderburg … Tollison’s client, who were suing Scruggs and his fellow Katrina groupies.
Thanks, NMC for that clarification .
ld
In my view, this ruling very significantly undermines the criminal case. Where’s the motive? Why would anyone bribe a judge to do what the law requires anyway? If your best argument against these very succesful attorneys is that they are “idiots,” as a poster above comments, that’s pretty weak.