Following the Scruggs cases is hardest because it is literally a multi-front war. Periodically, one front or the other heats up unpredictably. Some of them bop along generating pleadings when no one is paying attention. I’m going to list a number of them here that we are trying to follow. I wonder if we’ve left any out. BTW, there has been much discussion of each of these cases on Folo. If you want to read more about each, just use the search box on this page. I’m going to list the cases and throw comments open for discussion or observations about what I might have missed.
- U.S. v. Scruggs, the 11/28/07 indictment in North Mississippi for bribing Judge Lackey. Set for trial at the end of March and strangely quiet lately, with no docket action since Judge Biggers told Scruggs he could not hire Ken Coghlan.
- U.S. v. Scruggs, the contempt proceeding in North Alabama. It was set for motions hearings today and has a docket riddled with contentious motions. The parties can’t even agree on what to call the “special prosecutors” (that’s what the prosecution calls themselves) or the “private attorneys” (as Scruggs’s pleadings call them, to the annoyance of the other side). There is also on for today setting a scheduling motion, which may mean we hear about a trial setting.
- State Farm v. Hood, the injunction proceeding, which ended yesterday with a resounding victory for State Farm. The most interesting thing short-term there would be access to the transcript of the public hearing. I’m going to assume that will become available. There are two dangling loose ends there — whether two sealed artifacts will ever emerge, the under-seal deposition of Dickie Scruggs, and the under-seal settlement agreement. Because both sealed documents are being held by the federal courts (the former under Judge Mills’s order delivering it to Judge Bramlette, and the latter under the judgment in this case), they are presumptively subject to public access under federal law, and I’d have my doubts whether Hood can agree to circumvent the Mississippi public records act as to the settlement agreement. So it isn’t impossible that if some one will do the work, we’d get to see at least the agreement, if not both. A fight over the seal on the Scruggs deposition would be Armageddon-level contending with the Scruggs legal team, I’m sure. Who knows, maybe this would be a way to find common ground for State Farm, Scruggs and Hood (keep it secret!!).
- McIntosh v. State Farm. This is the case Mike Moore said was the most egregious of the State Farm claims denials. That motion docket is insane, making the case very difficult to follow. Scruggs has withdrawn from this case. Now pending are motions to disqualify all the remaining Katrina Group lawyers; I honestly doubt those motions have much chance because of Judge Senter’s earlier denial of a similar motion. There is another ongoing battle in this case about whether to depose Scruggs.
- Glenda Shows v. State Farm. This is the case with RICO (racketeering) allegations against State Farm. It was filed by the Scruggs Katrina Group; Scruggs has since withdrawn and State Farm has moved to disqualify the remaining Katrina Group lawyers. This one is newer and not as far along as the McIntosh case. The complaint was filed 6/20/07. Discovery has just commenced, and State Farm has filed motions to dismiss.
- Hood’s case against State Farm. This is the civil case Hood filed in the Chancery Court of Hinds County, two weeks after Katrina. The theory was he was going to get a quick resolution of the enforceability of the wind/water exclusion in state court. That has not panned out. The case settled, and then the settlement disintegrated in the wake of Senter’s displeasure over the terms as presented by Scruggs, and Scruggs’s displeasure over the looming (now pending) contempt charges in Alabama. Hood testified in the State Farm v. Hood hearing that this case has resumed combat, although that’s not been much publicized, possibly partly because people outside Hinds County have no ready access to the docket.
- Jones, Funderburg v. Scruggs. In the state circuit court in Lafayette County, this is the fee dispute in which Balducci says he attempted to bribe Judge Lackey. The court ruled it will go to arbitration (unless it rules against arbitration as a sanction for the bribery attempt). We’re apparently awaiting a hearing on that, with the judge hesitant to force testimony on those issues while the bribery case is about to get tried.
- Merkel & Cocke v. Scruggs. A state circuit court case in which the lawyers for Alwyn Luckey are suing Scruggs for malicious prosecution claiming Scruggs filed a strike suit against them, punishing them for representing Luckey. They brought this after winning in the Miss. Supreme Court the case Scruggs brought against them. First Balducci, then (when he struck out on his own) Langston represented Scruggs this one. No new lawyer has apparently appeared since Balducci and Langston had their law license disappear.
- Renfroe & Co. v. Rigsby. The case in North Alabama against the Rigsby sisters for making off with the adjusting documents. I haven’t looked at the docket in a bit. Is there another battle ongoing there about deposing Scruggs?
- The Rigsby qui tam action. I’ve hardly paid attention to this one. It’s a suit against State Farm saying that State Farm defrauded the federal government in adjusting flood insurance claims and asking to be paid to pursue it.
- Maria Brown v. the Nutt law firm. This is a case in the federal court in South Mississippi, in which a former paralegal is suing this SKG member for sexual harassment. While that on its face doesn’t seem to directly relate, the complaint and amended complaint in the case contain extensive allegations about SKG’s hanging on to the Rigsby documents after Judge Acker ordered them handed over. Brown has been deposed in the Alabama civil case between Renfroe and the Rigsbys, although the deposition is under seal.
- Whatever Langston, Balducci, and Patterson are doing by way of cooperation. Surely this is not limited to the “other crimes” evidence the prosecutors are offering up in the Mississippi U.S. v. Scruggs. There is a lot of thumping and bumping of furniture barely audible from behind the curtain, and some prominently named-names in the plea-facts for these folks, but it’s all as yet invisible.
Then there are a bunch of cases in which questions have surfaced about whether Judge DeLaughter was improperly influenced by Ed Peters. There are pending motions in one, Eaton Corp. v. Frisby, that directly raise the issue of the impact of the Peters/DeLaughter relationship. Wilson v. Scruggs is long over, but there are clear rumblings (which anyone would expect) that the plaintiffs intend to reawaken it. There has not been a peep out of the loser in Kirk v. Pope, but that may not mean anything. Nothing can really happen to re-open the manslaughter case we’ve discussed.
These are the cases about which there are public reasons to wonder. There are rumblings about other cases, too, although too distant and vague to be worth mentioning.
That leaves another Peters-related case, the Keith Shelton bar proceeding, which is pending before the Mississippi Supreme Court, and finally:
13. Peters and DeLaughter. This is partly but not entirely a repeat of #12. This may be a prosecution delivered up by Langston and crew, but if rumors of Peters’ cooperation are true, this may in combination with #12 produce a lot more cases. Once again, much rumbling behind the curtains but no clear indication where it goes next.
Update:
I’ve added in the Hood case in Hinds County Chancery Court, which I later remembered, and the RICO case, mentioned by Researcher in comments. I’ve also added a little description to what’s gone on in McIntosh.
2nd Update:
Someone wrote about Merkel & Cocke v. Scruggs, which I did not know about. A small third update added the name of the lawyers in that one.
3rd Update:
Added Brown against the Nutt firm.
NMC,
That indeed is a lot of fronts to engage action–might run out of troops!
When you’re short on troops, the best tactic is to send out scouts to see what the enemy is up to. That way you can concentrate forces as needed. Lotus and NMC, you may need to press-gang a few Folo’ers (how’dya like that turn of phrase?) to each keep an eye on one front and report back when they seek smoke signals or signs of movement.
Regarding the case in Alabama.
http://clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080208/NEWS/80208026&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
What is the status of the RICO case?
there’s a new story on the clarion ledger website “Scruggs seeks dismissal of contempt case. Don’t know if you folks have seen it – I just saw it pop up – sorry but dont know how to insert links…
The RICO complaint is Shows v. State Farm
iratetoday – you and i must be on the same wavelength
Shows is another front I missed. So is the state’s suit against State Farm in the Chancery Court of Hinds County.
The Times-Picayune article about the GAO report on the flood program included news that Allan Kanner is trying to take the qui tam lead away from Scruggs and the Rigsbys:
http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2008/01/gao_report_warns_of_insurer_bi.html
Allan Kanner, a New Orleans attorney who represented a group of former insurance adjusters who filed a whistleblower lawsuit on behalf of taxpayers after they documented evidence of insurers overpaying flood claims and underpaying wind claims, said the GAO findings validate the work of his clients.
In October, a federal judge in New Orleans dismissed the suit by the Branch Consultants, saying that the charges could be vetted through another whistleblower lawsuit in Mississippi that was filed earlier. But the attorney handling that suit was Mississippi attorney Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, who was indicted in late November on allegations of bribing judges.
Kanner said that nothing is happening on the Mississippi suit because of Scruggs’ legal troubles, and the Branch Consultants have filed appeals to have their suit reinstated.
Very helpful, NMC. I still don’t see the victory for State Farm you declare and think it’s based on an assumption of what was "unambiguous " about the agreement. I don’t see how you can be so certain given the unknown contents of the sealed agreement.
I realize I’m putting my high school English teacher up against yours without the benefit of anything other than a long outdated LSAT on my side and a law degree and years of practice on yours.
No need to cut me any slack, but I’d like to know why I’m wrong … particularly since you’ve mapped out the long road ahead and I’m still stuck in this rut.
Nowdoucit, I cannot even imagine what you are driving at. State Farm filed a lawsuit asking for an injunction against further criminal prosecution by Hood. Other than attorneys fees, that’s all they sought. Hood agreed to a final judgment giving them 100% of the relief they sought. That is an unequivocal inarguable victory, and it is a very rare victory– injunctions against state court criminal prosecutions by federal courts are rare to the point of near nonexistence. There is nothing in the sealed part of the agreement that could take it any other way. This represents a complete surrender by Hood of his effort to prosecute State Farm, which is the only thing the State Farm v. Hood case was about.
And you don’t have to assume what was unambiguous about the agreement. The court says it– that the agreement bars further prosecution. That finding by the court was necessary to confer jurisdiction, which means that, even with the deal, Hood actually lost on the main point.
Do not think State Farm got what it was seeking? If it did, then it won. What’s left for Hood to have “won?”
He got to keep the $5 million correct? Not a small chunck of change by any means.
We don’t know if he did or not, IAG—the docs are sealed.
The court says that the agreement bars FUTHER PROSECUTION> Does that not mean cease and desist…Leave SF alone.
State Farm can’t very well ask for the money back– they took the position in court this week that they’d paid the $5 mil as a part of the deal and Hood still had it. Hood testified that he in fact had put the money in trust while they litigated whether the deal was off.
I do believe that Treasurer Tate Reeves was looking into that… where in the hell that $5 million went
Just heard from our Booneville connections…. There has been a great deal of activity at the law offices of a former partner of Joey Langston . The Feds, local law, & TV media have been on the scene. Watch the 6 & 10 news. Maybe it will be there.
Hmmmm.
Maybe Joey is announcing that he auctioning off his assests on Ebay!
The Partership was giving his office 800.000.00 yearly ….What was the AG’S office making on all those deals where the lawyer fees were in the millions?
Oops I misread the post!
Hmmm, more indictments!
Big news, SOG. Let me know what you hear.
I have a question. We have a lot of lawyers on the site. To keep up with these cases, it might be a good idea to “assign things out.” The main thing needed would be either: (1) access to an facility with Pacer. and/or (2) access to a Westlaw or Lexis account that includes free access to court dockets. I don’t even know if Mississippi state dockets are available that way, but if they are, it would make following those possible. Otherwise, we are going to have to find someone close by.
Finishing my question– so if anyone is interesting in following any particular cases, email Lotus and me at the address in the upper right hand corner. I’ve got the ND Miss. covered, and also the Alabama contempt case.
The connection from Booneveille was totally wrong. Yes, the media was at Ronald Michael’s law office, who is a former partner of Joey Langston; however, iwas for a photo shoot for Travis Childress, the Chancery Clerk of Prentiss County, who is running for Congresss from the First District. Sorry, but there’s noo news. This is my first submisiion, but I check FOLO every day.
it will be interesting to find out what happened in booneville
How many former partners did Langston have? Names?
That’s pretty funny, Nancy!
Explains that huh?
Thanks, Nancy.
I would be glad to watch Shows and the qui tam actions.
People must be jumpy in Booneville.
Hood said the $5 mil is still in a trust account.
close your eyes NMC while I ask another question? (smile)
"If a lawsuit is dismissed "with prejudice, " the plaintiff is barred from bringing another lawsuit on the same claim or cause. "
State Farm was the “Plaintiff”.
The Judge said the agreement was “stand alone, unambiguous, and enforceable”.
State Farm filed the suit saying that Hood was breaking the agreement.
Hood announced the settlement claiming victory the night before the “Judgment of Dismissal” was released.
I see nothing to indicate Hood was incorrect, premature maybe, but correct.
What is godsname am I missing?
news in the post above. not much.
I now get your point, nowdoucit. Hood can pretend it wasn’t a loss because the order doesn’t out-and-out state that Hood must never prosecute SF about the Katrina claims.
The order does spell out that the agreement is unambiguous and enforceable and that the court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement about it. It requires no reading between the lines to conclude that it unambiguously says “no more prosecutions” (that was the SF position. The only alternative position would be that it is ambiguous, something the court rejected at the start of the day on Wed.). The court’s finding of jurisdiction required a finding it had a basis to interfere with Hood’s ongoing investigation (that is, that one of the exceptions to the Younger doctrine applied). The parties could not consent to that.
That’s all probably too compressed. But that is why I think it clear SF won.
For what it’s worth, NMC, I concur with your take on the outcome in Natchez.
Lotus, now are you following my e-mail from yesterday. Get NMC on it I think he can put the dots together. Was Michael in on the Tobacco Deal? and he represented who.. and was at whos office the same daythe feds ran a warrant….oh well.
check out the news story– a little newsier than I said before!
here’s the part that made me startle:
“Special prosecutors said the contempt case in Alabama could be resolved in any possible plea deal in the bribery and conspiracy case in Mississippi, but there has been no word of an agreement. They urged Vinson to let the contempt charges move forward against Scruggs, one of the nation’s richest trial lawyers and a brother-in-law of former Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.”
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=771196c526a447e6a9ae22047cac674f&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=771196c526a447e6a9ae22047cac674f&plckPostId=Blog%3a771196c526a447e6a9ae22047cac674fPost%3a0f0da284-c55b-40e2-bdf5-3b5837a02cb9&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest
I just hate the new Clarion-Ledger website. All that gibberish above is supposed to be a link to Sid Salter’s blog on the lawman and the confidential informant. As usual, our friend BelleSouth attacks Salter vigorously, and defends Hood just as vociferously, in the comments.
Might also want to check and see whm repesented Thruston Little in the big insurance deal with Frankel!
It was State Farm’s case that was “dismissed with prejudice”
re: paragraph 3, line 3 Judgment of Dismissal re: Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-188 (DCB) (MTP)
Hood had no case to dismiss – he was the Defendant.
Must be a “senior moment” because I just don’t get it – past time for a drink on this think!
nowdoucit-
A plaintiff’s case is dismissed with prejudice by agreement when the defendant gives the plaintiff what they want. Perhaps I am missing something here but to my simple way of thinking this is the absolute best evidence that SF got what they really wanted, otherwise the hearing would have continued.
If indeed I am missing something please help me see it.
Stormy, would you please send me that again? I don’t recall seeing it in all that e-mess known as “yesterday.” Thankers.
Stormy,
My good friend and I have said that Thurston and Frankel have a good chance of coming into play–too damn much $$$$MONEY involved!
I can assure you that the law firm of Ronald D. Michael, Joey Langston’s former partner, was not “visited” by the Feds and local law on February 8, 2008. TV media was on scene shooting a photo shoot for and on behalf of Travis Childers. I know this for a fact because I’m Ronald’s personal secretary.
nowdy and NMC, could it be that SF now will have to comply as well to the agreement and the conditions that were set out by Judge Senter — the agreement that Hood said was breached? Would not that be a win for Hood?
SF seemed to be saying they had paid $75 mil and re-evaluated 5000 claims, but Hood said he wouldn’t know because they had breached the agreement. Y’all help me out here.
Belle, as you continue to beg for some way to make it otherwise, everything still appears exactly as NMC originally stated: “State Farm won in State Farm v. Hood. Period. (by NMC)”
Now, if you MUST find a “win for Hood,” may I suggest the fact that he wasn’t escorted off the stand in handcuffs as such and make you happy?
Lotus…. YGM!!!!!!
My Thoughts, I didn’t ask you nor did you provide an answer. Would you like to back that up?
I have some thoughts about whether anything about the proceedings in Natchez could be considered a “win for Hood”, but from dear belle’s rejoinder to MT it is obvious that she does not welcome thoughts from anyone but NMC or now. An interesting perspective indeed.
Thank for organizing the list. Very helpful.
I would add one potential front -think of it as Japan in the planning stages of Pearl Harbor. That would be our friend Mr. Blake and his newspaper clipping service.
You of course have his MS “connections.” But the NYT article implied that he had all sorts of magical fore-knowledge of the DC oppositions positions, tactics, etc. Knowledge that would not seem to be readily derived from a simple good ole boys network.
It needs a bridge to get there, but if it gets there….
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OOOpsbFzqc0
Bobby had badly aged. This is just so sad…
Will we ever know what happen between State Farm and Hood/Scruggs?
russell120,
I think the bridge is erected. The Blake thing is the one thing that makes sense and can be followed(folo)–Scruggs to Langston, Langston to Blake and Blake to???? It is the thing that I have hung my hat on since day ONE! It absoutely makes NO SENSE at all in regards to how money was delivered and spent.
tiredlwyr, this is tired nowdy – and thank you very much for the help as it certainly wasn’t my “learned opinion” that cause the belle to mention my name.
However, before exchanging my computer for a “drink to think” I discovered that a judge can independently dismiss a plaintiff’s case with prejudice.
Is it possible the judge in this case made the decision to “dismiss with prejudice” without either parties’ consent – noting that someone noted his ruling was not usual practice – but agreed to seal a settlement of related matters?
The “google school of law” can only take one so far – and I’m very frustrated with my inability to get over this hump.
All assistance welcome and appreciated.
nowdy-
“Possible” is a difficult concept.
I suppose that anything is “possible”. As a “practical” matter it is inconceivable to me that SF would not be howling like a pack of wolves if any judge dismissed their complaint with prejudice without allowing them to present all of their proof. Unless, of course the dismissal was part of the agreement.
From where I am sitting in the peanut gallery this appears much more mundane; much more in the nature of A sues B. B offers what A wants so A agrees to dismiss his complaint with prejudice. That is how all civil cases are handled when there is a settlement. Not trying to be overly simplistic.
Jim:
I am not familiar with this paper, but I thought it made the point a little more straight forward then the NYT.
http://www.enterprise-journal.com/articles/2007/12/27/opinion/03.txt
Of course the answer could be: he did nothing and was just planning to kick some of the money back. But that would be no fun.
And I have, in the words of nowdy, had my “drink to think” so perhaps it is in my best interests to call in the dogs lest I get cited for posting under the influence.
this is ridiculous.
There.Was.An.Agreed.Order.
The case was dismissed with an order that both sides drafted and fought over, and the judge agreed to sign. That is what happens when a case settles.
To pretend that the judge did this without the lawyers consent is crazy talk– this case was resolved by the party’s consent.
I’m not sure why you are so insistent in finding a way to think otherwise, noudoucit.
The judge could not have signed that order under these circumstances without the consent of the parties. If anyone had disagreed, the trial would have continued on thursday. This was not Judge Bramlette’s idea on his own.
I’m not rooting for any particular side. I wish that Hood was a great attorney general advocating the interest of consumers. I would be very willing to see evidence that Katrina insurers were acting in bad faith. But those wishes do not wish away manifest reality–
That Hood caved, and that the criminal prosecution is over, and that this is a resounding and even humiliating defeat for Jim Hood.
So tell me, what real fact suggestions anything to the contrary? I am receptive to hear.
At the risk of posting under the influence, I would say, “NMC, there are none.”
At risk of same, tiredlawyer, I would say, “NMC, ridiculous or not, that’s what I’m trying to learn.
If I learn anything to the contrary of the consensus opinion here, I’ll post a comment but otherwise not mention.
Russ120,
Yes I have seen, and posted, that article. I actually got it from the Greenwood paper. I guess the McComb and Greenwood papers are joined at the hip in some fashion. I wish someone (Tim) would do a follow up.
WAAAAH — a great restaurant I ain’t been to! (sniffle – snort – sigh)
Okay, but will ya do us a favor? New folo has a page for us foodies called Sunday Dinnah. Would you consider waiting a day or so to crosspost that report on both sites?
Jane, Waltz is the 4th best restaurant in Oxford, I am 100% sure.
Jane, meaning that Scruggs will cave and then roll on others? Politicos?
Actually, you could make an argument it’s fifth best.
i wasn’t thinking about 208 at all. You may have had a better meal at Waltz than your meal at City Grocery; I’ve eaten at both a fair amount. I was thinking about L&M, City Grocery, and Marie’s.
Someone came up to me yesterday at the chancery building and asked about Waltz. First I’ve heard about it. Where is it exactly?
And Scruggs..I thank the powers that be that things remained calm this week, other than the Hood stuff but since it was far away, we got away with wire stories. Too much going on with tornados.
You guys think you’re so smart. MY town just got itself a Quiznos, so there!
Waltz is were Off Square used to be, and was briefly a bad Mexican place prior to its current incarnation. On Van Buren just off the Square.
it is gorgeous.
L&M cures their own meat, raising and processing the hogs themselves. Incredibly gorgeous pork. They make very traditional Italian cured pork like guanciale and pancetta and make their own pasta. The proprietor learned how as Mario Batali’s main sausage maker in NYC and decided to come home to Mississippi.
courtesy of a tip in email, I have added another case to the multi-front-war.
Every time I go to Oxford, everytime, I eat lunch at Ajax. You can’t beat the food you get for $8.00.
What is a strike suit? Never heard of that term.
Goldang it, you birds just can’t wait one day to have this discussion on my nice new foodie page, can you?
Oh welladay, plenny more where this comes from, innit.
Has anyone ever tried The Beacon? I’m sure the other fancy restaurants can’t hold a candle to it.
Lotus, you mentioned a comment about Merckel and Cocke–you didn’t know something about them. I am interested and can’t seem to find it. I, too, have never heard of a “strike suit.”
Surely you jest! The Beacon is alright, but it’s just a country food place. Nothing fancy.
Now Handy Andy’s is one of those places that doesn’t get mentioned that much. If you want BBQ or a burger they can’t be beat.
I was KIDDING!! The springs were coming up through the seats at the Beacon last time I was there. I love those Fried Pickles, though.
I love the cake they have. I think some of the waitresses have been there for decades. It’s been since law school since I ate there but I remember they had Confederate Flag bordering on the walls. Always got a kick out of that.
UMATTY, I can’t place what question I asked about M&C, but I do recall that the term “strike suit” came up recently and I wondered what it meant.
A strike suit is a lawsuit brought by a single person or group of people with the purpose of gaining a private settlement before going to court that would be less than the cost of the defendant’s legal costs. Such suits frequently appear where the defendant is a considerably larger entity than the plaintiff, such as a corporation or an estate. Due to the financial incentive to settle rather than let the case be determined on its merits, strike suits are sometimes perceived as being a form of legal blackmail and referred to as holdup suits. Some states in the United States have laws to restrict or ban such lawsuits by reducing the financial gain of the plaintiff.
Thanks Wiki
UMATTY, lemme go rummage around for that comment, see if I can find it.
. . . (“Jeopardy” music) . . .
Nope, nuttin’. Do you remember a word or phrase I used in that comment that I can search for?
Thanky, irate (and Wikipedia).
Charlie Merckel was quoted or had comments in an article this past week–I can’t remember the exact date or where.
I”m about to add another update– that the lawyer representing Scruggs in Merkel & Cocke vs. was initially Balducci, then Langston, and now….
no one, yet.
just playing around on the net and came across this comversation i’m guessing. Where was this taking place?
TMize