I thought this a good time to check into that litigation Frisby (well, its successor, but for simplicities sake I’ll say Frisby) filed against Eaton Corp. in North Carolina, alleging that it pursued these lawsuits and other tactics as a sham to keep Frisby away from government contracts.
What’s been up has been that Eaton filed counterclaims against Frisby, re-asserting the claims that Judge Yerger dismissed as a sanction for the illegal and improper contact between Ed Peters and Judge DeLaughter in the original Eaton v. Frisby litigation.
Frisby responded to the counterclaim with a motion to dismiss, asserting res judicata– that the North Carolina district court was bound to give Full Faith and Credit to Judge Yerger’s ruling dismissing the claims for Eaton and its lawyers’ illegal conduct ,which consisted of Peters using ex parte meetings with DeLaughter to plan out undoing rulings by special master Jack Dunbar that had gone against Eaton.
Perhaps that whole adventure sensitized Eaton to the concept of due process, or perhaps, as noted in the heading, Eaton and its lawyers just have a well developed sense of the absurd, because here’s what Eaton raises in its effort to avoid the impact of Judge Yerger’s ruling: That Judge Yerger didn’t give Eaton due process.
Right! That whole thing were both sides get to hear each other’s arguments and the judge is not approached under the table!
Oh, and there’s also this sentence, apparently intended to put the best possible face on Eaton’s decision to hire Ed Peters, I guess explaining that they had decided to simultaneously take the high road and the low road approaches to lawyering up:
In December 2006, with the case still in the early stages of discovery, Eaton retained Ed Peters, the former Hinds County District Attorney, as well as two other Mississippi attorneys — Fred Banks and Rueben Anderson of Phelps Dunbar, both of whom are former Mississippi Supreme Court Justices — to represent Eaton in the case.
If I were either of the other two gentlemen mentioned in that sentence, I’d have probably come out with a relatively pained, “Hey!?!” upon reading it.
Frisby response motion dismiss
Banks and Anderson are just wincing every time their names are mentioned in connection with this case, period. It beggars imagination that they were completely unaware of the Peters shenanigans.
… In other news, the MSSC did indeed order the Hon. Eddie Bowen recused in that asbestos case.
Some other judge will hear the post-trial motions, I guess — which of course the Court does not like them to do, but no choice here.
Has the Judge in North Carolina ruled on the motion to dismiss?
The Eaton response is breathtaking. It attempts to spin the tale that Eaton had been denied due process without mentioning once that Judge Yerger had referred this matter to a special master who presided over all depositions and made recommendations to which Eaton had input and the ability to make objections. And then Eaton goes one further: Having fought to keep this all under seal in Mississippi, in North Carolina, Eaton alleges:
>>
On September 22, 2009, the Mississippi court entered an order designating the vast majority of the documents related to the “ex parte investigation” as “restricted,” and hence sealed. (Ex. 5.) Those documents have remained under seal, pending further review to determine which documents may be unsealed. (Ex. 6 & 7.) The Mississippi court still may unseal those records or permit this Court to review them under seal. It has done that to permit the use of the documents in the criminal proceedings that still remain pending against five of plaintiff’s engineers. (See Ex. 5 & 8.) But it has not yet done so to permit disclosure here. On this record, without proof of the procedural fairness of the December 22 rulings, the motion to dismiss should be denied.
<<
Why didn’t Banks and Anderson know that Peters was not listed as an attorney of record? Did they consult with Peters? Should they have known Peters had been retained?
Why didn’t Banks and Anderson know that Peters was not listed as an attorney of record? Did they consult with Peters? Should they have known Peters had been retained?
IIRC, there are Eaton e-mails copying the three of them on what were obviously attorney-client matters.