Jackson Jambalaya

But does Butler Snow have any 'old gray mule' cases to support its appeal? Those are cases that are on all fours to support one's position.

please explain what this means.

"please explain what this means" asked October 8, 2019 at 1:00 PM

All this document legally means is that Butler Snow is asking the 5th Circuit to review Judge Reeves' denial of its motion to either dismiss Mills' claims against the firm or if not, send them to arbitration. It will go to a panel of 3 judges who will decide what to do. If Reeves' ruling stands from the panel, Butler can ask for the entire circuit to consider it ("en banc").

What it MIGHT "mean" is much harder to discern. It could mean anything from Butler Snow and its attorneys honestly think Reeves was wrong on the law and have a reasonably viable argument in support thereof, to Butler and its attorneys thinking that there is nothing to lose and will attempt to reword the failed lower-court argument hoping to find more receptive ears, to Butler Snow being similar to a drowning man desperately grasping at anything - even imaginary life preservers - to avoid his fate and will throw all sorts of stuff at the wall hoping something magically sticks. From the outside looking in, Reeves findings were based upon Butler Snow's own actions and appeared to have solid support, plus Butler Snow didn't (or couldn't) put forth much to support its argument in the lower court. History suggests that reversal by the 5th is a long shot given something like this, but past performance does not guarantee future results.

Based upon what has been made public, Butler Snow appealing Reeves' ruling certainly appears to at least border on desperation. I think he basically got it right, the judges at the 5th will not be amused, and the odds are that Butler Snow will regret this.

The appeal briefings will be an interesting read.

He can't.

Alan Perry is BS’s attorney of record. For those with a short memory, this is Alan Perry...former IHL President. Arrogance on top of arrogance. Enough said.

LOL.

One does NOT assert limited jurisdiction AND include arbitration in the same contract. This is a Hail Mary for arbitration bc that’s their only hope.

I guess you can’t blame them for trying to “hedge” their bets, but as we can all see, investments are not their forte.

The only reason I see for this appeal is to buy time. Typically, when a notice of appeal is filed the lower court loses jurisdiction over the case until the appeal is decided (not sure about appeals of arbitration orders). I agree that Judge Reeves got it right, and this appeal has little hope of success on its merits.

Barbour Snow may have just run out of favorable venue shopping. No wonder Phil was so adamant about appointing a "local" lawyer.

"One does NOT assert limited jurisdiction AND include arbitration in the same contract."

Well, obviously, some folks do that very thing, but I suspect that you mean "[c]ompetent contract attorneys do NOT..." Actually, if I remember correctly, the boilerplate contract contained the arbitration clause but Butler added a subsequent non-boilerplate addendum with language that specifically stated the election of forum and law. On top of the ambiguity against the drafter problem there is the argument that the later agreement-specific terms were a better reflection of the intent of the parties at the time of the contract's execution. Alternatively, there may be an argument that BS knowingly tried to have it both ways (another example of badly hedging one's bet) and got its hedge mowed down and plowed under.

As to bet-hedging, it might be a reasonable thing in investing but in this case it may well lead to having to argue sanctions should Mills ask for them.

They are buying time and trying to pay off or play politics for a favorable ruling.

I understand the delay tactics in the basketball game. The rest of this is meaningless to my feeble little mind. I like black and white. All this gray area makes me want another shot of whisky.

3:38 - thank you for a clear, understandable explanation of the issue for us non-lawyers.

Lawyers! Whadda gunna do wit dem?

Has anyone told B-S that their work on their own appeal isn't "billable hours?"

I see another victory on the horizon for Ms. Mills.
Interesting that one lawyer is too much for BS.

Let's face it Barbour Snow has for a long time relied on politics, not good quality legal work, for its "reputation" and success. They do have some good lawyers and some decent people there, but the law firm is nothing more than a group of political whores. When the political tides turn, and they will eventually, then the firm's huge financial success and monopolies on state business will dry up. Sadly, a once prominent and reputable firm has lost its moral compass.

Among the diverse and varied comments, can someone state in plain english what BS did? If -- and that means "possibly" -- they knowingly furthered a fraudulent investment scheme . . . then who cares what their firm name is or the name of the lawyer defending them. (BTW - I know both sides. Family ties to founders of BS and friends/co-counsel relationship with attorney receiver).