folo

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the Folo RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Judge Coleman has just ruled that he has the authority to deny the Jones v. Scruggs defendants arbitration as a sanction for alleged bribery of the judge by some defendants. Saying very carefully he was not deciding guilt or innocence, and noting that this was a case of first impression, he stated that there is “little question the court has the authority to take action to punish misconduct in proceedings. None of the allegations of misconduct in the Mississippi cases to date rise to the level of the heinous crime of bribery of a judge. The harshest sanctions would be authorized, including striking the pleadings.”

He rejected the defense argument that the case had to go to arbitration first. He quoted the handbook of the American Arbitration Association from the Jones brief, that “where a sanction is available for abusive conduct depends on where the abusive conduct occurs.” (It was in the circuit court.) “To ignore the alleged misconduct would allow a win-win result for the offender. If the bribe results in a favorable result, the offender wins. If the court cannot strike the pleadings as a sanction, the offender wins again.”

He ruled that all of the members of Scruggs Katrina Group share liability as joint venturers — the action of one is the action for all.

He will hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion to strike, to determine the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations and to determine the action to be taken. He will allow the plaintiff about 60 days of discovery. They agreed no depositions before the 3/31 criminal trial.

The judge noted that the plaintiffs had taken an interlocutory appeal of some of the prior rulings. That’s news to me!

Update:

here is the Mississippi Supreme Court docket on the interlocutory appeal. From the timing, either the Jones side took up the order sending the case to arbitration, or the Scruggs side took up the order that the court was going to rule on whether it could do sanctions outside of arbitration. I lean slightly to the later, just a hunch. Can’t tell for sure, but I’m guessing the order at the end of the docket says no to an interlocutory appeal.