Judge Coleman has ruled. He is striking the motion for arbitration and the SKG answer. All of the SKG defendants are subject to this ruling. Judge Coleman is not accepting every allegation in the complaint as true– I think he’s not accepting that the facts in the complaint add up to establishing claim for punitive damages, for instance. He is going to hold a hearing where Jones can prove the fees due him under the joint venture agreement. There won’t be a jury. He has ruled the allegations in the complaint were not sufficient on their face to support a claim for punitive damages, but that the plaintiffs are still allowed to prove their entitlement of punitive damages.
To understand the ruling, keep in mind the difference between the claims in the original complaint (a claim for SKG attorneys fees for Jones’s work) and the request for sanctions. The hearing will be about Jones’s share of SKG fees and his entitlement for punitive damages for SKG’s conduct in failing to pay him before suit was filed.
Thanks again, NMC. How quickly will the follow-on hearing happen, ya think (maybe being answered as I type)?
Struck the Answer–pretty strong. Basically a Default Judgment with a Writ of Inquiry.
Exactly right, watching closely.
There’s going to be some discovery pre-hearing, lotus. They were negotiating all that when I left the courthouse.
Excuse the ignorance…after the nexthearing will Coleman then rule on fees owed (and punitive damages if any) – or will there be yet another hearing for that?
The next hearing will establish Jones’s share of the 26.5 mil in SKG fees, entitlement to punitive damages (and if there are p.d.’s, their amount). That will leave Jones to prove (probably on a motion without a formal hearing) the attorneys fees Jones is claiming for the Jones v Scruggs action.
Actually, there are more fees in the kitty than just the 26.5 M. That was just the first batch of cases; more have come in since then, according to the pleasdings.
I wondered about that LQC.
The hearing is set for 9 a.m., Nov. 12. Percy told me it was to give them time to do discovery and find out how much money is actually involved.
So, Lydia, is some intrepid reporter going to call Lon Stallings and ask him about the conversation with Judge Lackey?
NMC
in this article the AP tried
Assistant District Attorney Lon Stallings is the person who Lackey said told him that Moore approached Hood on Scruggs’ behalf. Stallings did not respond to a message left Wednesday.
http://www.sunherald.com/306/story/495500.html
Judge Lackeys’ memory is not in question to me. He had no reason that benifited him that I’m aware of to even tell a white lie, and about Moore, that’s completely a different story.
Anyone’s memory can get confused, especially when you’re dealing with such byzantine goings on. Judge Lackey hisself said in response to one question (as I recall:-), something to the effect “if that’s what the transcript says,” But assuming that his memory about what Mr. Stallings said is accurate, who or what was the source of the story Stallings told Judge Lackey?
Magnolia
I agree. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts Lackey communicated this to investigators on day one – which was well before Balducci verifying this when he said he agreed to contact Lackey because Scruggs hadn’t paid up his $500,000 Hood meeting.
So, Jones devoted over a year of his life to SKG cases that produced over $25 M in legal fees; and a year later none of his former “partners” have paid him even a dime.
So much for the beginning of their “image rehabilitation.”
Where’s dmwriter?
Go get Lon Stallings on the record!
There is a certain amount of stress (even for a Judge) to be a witness in a courtroom full of hostile lawyers, ready to castrate you at the first blimp. Who among us is willing to say I could have made a better witness, Mike Moore , come on down.
I think Judge Lackey sounded like an excellent witness. His sincerity in being conflicted about the whole situation, not wanting to ask for money bec if they were wrong (i.e. Balducci: “Judge what are talking about I would never do such thing. Response), he would be diminished in the eyes of a person he was friends with and when convinced to offer money, hoping his friend Balducci would say no, absolutely not, Judge. The ring of truthfulness was too much to deny. It happened just the way he said it did, therefore I believe him completely even if the ADA disputes on a minor detail.
Here’s Patsy’s new story and a sample therefrom:
Been meaning to ask: Is seven months to complete discovery about par-for-the-course in this situation? It surprised me.
Everything takes longer in state court. Also, in seven months a lot of the glare of publicity will be off the case.
So Mike Moore has Mr. Stallings on his text messaging? Sounds like Mr. Stallings knew what he was talking about when he told Lackey that Moore had threatened Hood. I don’t believe flashbulb Moore for a minute.
The presure on Scruggs to settle now is pretty strong. Otherwise Jones will be allowed full discovery of Scruggs’ financial condition, assets, net worth, investments and major expenditures, etc.
Ah, but zero pressure on the other side, LQC. Ulp.
Sweetie said that lawyers suing lawyers was like worms eating worms.
Oh well, no good greed goes unpunished.
Hey there, Kycol. How you be?
I’m with you Justsittinhere — I don’t think Mr. Flashbulb Moore is credible, either. For one thing, he contradicted himself. First he said Mr. Stallings didn’t talk to Judge Lackey and then he said Mr. Stallings told JudgeLackey to contact Hood. So which is it, Mikey?
Hey Lotus,
Been cutting trees, cutting grass and cutting a rug. All is quiet in my N E Ms corner of the world.
Hope all is swell in FLA for “yawl”.
Like the little critter said in Pogo, Kycol, “Jes’ fine, jes’ fine.” Glad to hear you are too.
LQC: Jones already knows all of that about Scruggs from when he represented Scruggs against Wilson and Luckey. He doesn’t really need any discovery on that front.
JSH. Sometimes just gettin’ ya money ain’t good enuff. Jones may want to extract a pound or two of that prime white backside AND get to put Scruggs through his worst nightmare of bad PR as punitive damages for trying to stiff his former attorney. Hell hath no fury like a women scorned or an attorney that you’ve pissed off with plenty of free time…
Judge Lackey is a wonderful role model. Lon Stallings is a great guy. Jim Hood is not crooked.
I write this having known all of them.
Lost, two out of three ain’t bad I guess…..If you hit “edit” quick and amend the next to the last sentence you can improve your overall average. You still have 47 minutes to edit it.
NMC Did Mayo ever ask Lackey if he thought he was being stung by Balducci? Maybe thought Balducci was working for the feds?
Cal is a great lawyer but I wondered why Scruggs couldn’t realize that at least in the back of any local lawyer’s mind would be the question of “Do I really want to ask that question of a judge I will appear before in the future?” Surprised they did not have some of their non-locals handling Lackey or the cross.
I also think its beyond weird that Howorth would call up Kent Smith of all people. I thought the Smith Balducci breakup was less than amicable.
Howorth did not call Kent Smith, Judge Lackey called him. I was slightly surprised about it, except the human level at which Judge Lackey expressed it made it pretty clear.
Mayo did not ask Lackey about the possibility of a sting. I think Lackey would probably say he didn’t think that was happening, but obviously I wouldn’t know without asking Judge Lackey.
shaves, I understand why someone might not share Lost’s opinion– but I would not say that Jim Hood is a crook based on what I know. I think he has made some terrible decisions while attorney general and worked with people he should not have worked with.
I think the timing of the contributions run through DAGA is really bad. Not a crime without more information. I think the MCI fee is very questionable. Not a crime without more information. The possible abuse of process (and perhaps even malicious prosecution) of State Farm may be closer to a crime, but still I think not quite based on what we know.
NMC, I was thinking that you reported in the live blogging session that Judge Howorth did call Kent Smith but I may have misinterpreted “he called.” I think it had to do with Smith and Balducci had practiced together and they were wondering what character flaw Balducci might have seen in Judge Lackey.
And I have to agree with you that Jim Hood is not a crook–maybe incompetent to be AG and may have used bad judgment on occasion but I really can’t say crook.
I’ll have to re-read my liveblogging posts and make sure I didn’t swap a name there or leave something ambiguous, watchingclosely
That’s how I recall it too, NMC. Struck me as odd that they’d call a Balducci friend, and that if they were going to run such a risk, that Howorth made the call instead of Lackey himself.
Lackey calling Smith makes more sense than Howorth calling Smith. When Balducci and Smith broke up, Balducci served Smith up to Webb then got served himself was what I heard. I don’t think the two have been friends since.
Balducci served Smith up to Webb? what does that mean, Evell?
Smith was going through an ugly divorce. Well UGLY UGLY UGLY is more accurate. His name was mud in Oxford (rightfully so, his wife at the time had cancer). I always heard that Balducci turned him in to his partner Webb and they invoked a morals clause in their agreement and packed Kent’s stuff up.
Then (again as I have heard) after Balducci cleaned Smith out Webb said, oh by the way….. invoked the same clause and Balducci was out the door.
Does that make sense now as to why Lackey may call Smith?
Okay, Evell, we’re gaining on this, but I’m still a bit lost. Is this Dan Webb (Webb Sa[u?]nders) you’re talking about? Did Smith work for or have a partnership with them at the time, or were they representing Mrs. Smith? Was Balducci part of Webb’s firm? What was this “morals clause”?
yes. yes. yes (partnership). yes. Morals clause was in the partnership (or bylaws or operating agreement or whatever they had as an entity) agreement.
Ah, much better! So the morals clause was something like “If you do it in the street and scare the horses, yo’ ass is outta here”?
Pretty much and I’ll leave it at that as a long time has passed and he (Kent Smith) has more than paid for it by being banished to Holly Springs from God’s country.
But, if I were going to dig dirt on Balducci, Smith would be my first call. Also if I was worried I was getting set up and wanted the 911 Smith would be high on my list of first calls. The Marshall County mafia is pretty connected.
Evell, Idy Claire, you can flat DO cryptic, kiddo. “Wanted the 911″? Is the Marshall County mafia tied into the Dixie Mafia?
Sorry, for 911 I meant 411. MCM is what remains of the Dixie Mafia.
Awrighty, almos’ there, Evell, if you can hang in for this last one: “411″ is “the skinny”? “early warning”? “protection”? ¿Qué?
info, what’s the 411 as the kids say. (well 10 years ago anyway)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What's_the_411%3F
YAY, Evell, ya finally got me to shore! Thank you!
Oh wait, Evell (channeling Columbo), one last leetle thing: what’s Smith’s connection with the MCM?
They backed him for public defender, county attorney although they could not get the votes for his run for judge. His new wife’s family is old school Marshall county.
Not to get too technical but let’s TRY to post more accurate info – in response to Evell’s post – Mrs. Smith HAD cancer prior to the divorce but had gotten a clean bill of health by the time of the divorce.
It is my understanding that the moral clause of that firm was set so as to discourage conduct that was detrimental to the firm e.g. expose it to sexual harassment claims. It is not uncommon. I really don’t believe that Balducci was shown the door, but decided he wanted more money.
Smith was Balducci’s friend going back to law school days. They started working for Langston right after law school and then went out on their own as “Balducci & Smith.” At first they did just general practice including public defender work.
Oooookay, now to go back and plug all my new knowledge into the previous gaps. Thank you ver’ much, Evell. Whew!
Blimey, and along comes Lost to throw over the table just when I had my dummy all arranged.
Also, I find it ludicrous that anyone would think or suggest that Judge Lackey had any thoughts of a sting against him. He was VERY insulted that someone…anyone, would think that he could/would be influenced/bribed by a “close” personal relationship or by an of-counsel position.
Good point, Lost.
Lost, on an earlier comment on this post you attested to the good character of Judge Lackey and Lon Stallings. You also stated that Jim Hood is not crooked. Your judgement is based upon the fact that you know all of them.
I don’t know if you know him, but if you do, my question to you: is Mike Moore crooked?
I do not know Mike Moore. I believe that Jim Hood has not made very smart decisions but he is not crooked.
Lost, not to split hairs but I believe she had cancer when, to put it delicately, the cause for the divorce happened. Doesn’t really matter to me, but I can tell you how the Oxford Jr. Auxiliary remembers it, which is more to my point as to why Webb axed him.
Smith’s name was mud due to his divorce from a very popular and attractive young woman who had suffered. I don’t know if there was anything else to invoke the morals clause, but the divorce is what everyone around these parts thought was the reason.
Balducci left shortly thereafter. You may be right that he left on his own, but the story going around was Webb let him do the dirty work then got rid of him himself. It was kind of a joke. Besides, if I was TB and was leaving anyway, why would he have made an enemy of Smith just to up and leave himself? Why not just let yourself out the door? Especially when you might be sticking yourself with the lease (which Webb holds to this day).
I thought Balducci and Smith went in with Ben Sanders first and then joined up with Webb. Balducci and Sanders were both guys with good grades but not really all that attractive to the big Jackson firms. (Ben Sanders was older and set in his ways, Balducci was, well, Balducci). Thought the Langston connection came later, but maybe TB went to work for Joey, left and came back. Maybe NMC remembers this, I can find out.
Smith was a year behind Balducci and Sanders in law school. I believe, The firm traded on Smith’s prior occupation as an insurance adjuster to do work for insurance companies at first.
I want to get it right, but in the end I don’t know if it matters to my point. Its what Lackey believed at the time he sought Smith out that is the point. If Lackey’s take on the history between them was the same as on the street here then he would not have thought Smith and Balducci the best of friends.
Well, between what’s been said here and on other threads tonight (especially afotl’s point on the Sanctuary thread just now), what keeps coming back to me is what a ripping shame it was that Jim Hood didn’t have sense enough to know when he had it good. He could have stayed fat’n'happy as DA in
Prentiss CountyI mean (sorry, Ben), the 3d District, but nooooo . . .Evell – you are correct in that Smith and Balducci were not close last March. As for what the Jr. Aux members recall – since SS, now SG, is an active member of Jr. Aux., the info may be somewhat biased. I could tell you a whole lot more but it would be very foolish of me to hang someone else’s old laundry for everyone to read.
Ben Sanders was at Hickman Goza and he joined with Smith, Balducci & Webb at the same time. Yes, I also knew Ben very well.
As for why Judge Lackey would contact Smith- Judge Lackey knows that Smith knows Tim very well. Smith also knows Judge Lackey very well. It would be like someone calling an “ex” and asking for some insight because the person he used to be married to is exhibiting some bizarre/unbelievable behavior.
Evell, is the Ben Sanders you are talking about the dear Ben who clerked for the Fifth Circuit and then died of a heart attack a few years later?
Yes. That Ben.
Lost 56, I don’t mean to imply Lackey thought he did anything wrong worthy of a sting, only that he entertained the thought, “What if Scruggs is working for the feds or otherwise trying to set me up?” When the story is written I bet he admits to such thoughts.
I think Lackey honorable and from what I hear this whole thing, just being associated with it is killing him. He is the kind of guy that it isn’t enough 99% of the people think he is honorable.
BTW, I think you are right about Lackey. I think Hood is just not very bright but not crooked.
It is hard for me to fathom as I am of the opinion that clean thinking follows clean conscience.