Thinkstream, Inc. and Barry Bellue VS Michael H. Rubin, Deborah d. Harkins, Emily B. Grey and McGlinchey Stafford, PPLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE Of LOUISIANA COURT Of APPEAL fIRST CIRCUIT 2006 CA 1595 THINKSTREAM INC AND BARRY BELLUE VERSUS MICHAEL H DEBORAH D RUBIN HARKINS EMILY B GREY AND McGLINCHEY STAffORD PLLC On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Docket No 533 139 Division Honorable Timothy E Kelley Judge Presiding Burley Brent D F Attorney Plaintiff Gonzales LA Barry Bellue Richmond C Odom Attorney Baton Plaintiff Rouge lA for Appellant for Appellant Thinkstream Inc Gibson James H David J Allen Attorneys Ayo Michael H Gooch lafayette T Deborah D Emily B Grey and McGlinchey Stafford PllC PARRO GUIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ Judgment ft1s C Appellees Rubin Harkins lA BEFORE for Defendants CWlWJ A1d frJ57N rendered SEP 2 6 2007 PARRO l Plaintiffs Thinkstream Inc of the trial court Thinkstream and Barry Bellue appeal the judgment dismissing their suit with prejudice pursuant strike in accordance with LSA C C P art 971 to a special motion to We affirm FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This matter Thinkstream Michael H s involves a Deborah D Thinkstream and Bellue damages filed by Thinkstream and Bellue Harkins and Emily client in a proceedings relevant to as a McGlinchey result of actions taken litigation against Thinkstream and Bellue matter before this court involves several other Grey collectively B allege that they sustained damages by McGlinchey in representing were for president and CEO against the law firm of McGlinchey Stafford PLLC Rubin Although the suit an only the suit against McGlinchey there understanding of the background of this suit The Reauest for Proposals In July 2003 the Louisiana Commission of Criminal Justice Louisiana Board LCLE issued for the RFP committee development of each proposal committee The RFP further bidder whose was Each the State to be criminal s reviewed on behalf of the in proposals light of contract proposals the pool of bidders member a set by was an evaluation to evaluate of criteria established score and was the by the determined to be in the was by the Board completed narrowed to three committee to each was evaluated According light of the established criteria After the committee established Corporation Templar provide information negotiations would be initiated with the proposal had received the highest assigned by the to justice community and individual committee provided that best interests of the state in score RFP Request for Proposals comprehensive solution a across technical sections of the written RFP Law Enforcement and Administration Integrated Criminal Justice Information System ICJIS and its Policy Board sharing and data integration to the a on ranked first bidder companies based Based and Thinkstream 2 its evaluation on was these on of the the average scores ranked third Templar The top three bidders the invited to were give oral presentations before the Board After hearing presentations the Board awarded the contract to Thinkstream despite the fact that Templar had been ranked first by the committee after it had applied the scoring methodology On sending established by the RFP April 9 2004 Templar protested the award of the letter to Michael Ranatza a with LAC 34 V 14s 8 On the Executive Director of the LCLE April 29 2004 McGlinchey filed in an accordance with to by in accordance April 15 2004 Mr Ranatza denied the protest Shortly thereafter Templar hired McGlinchey Commissioner contract to Thinkstream in writing appeal the denial of the protest and on appeal before the Commissioner of Administration LAC 34 V 14S 11 In the petition of appeal Templar generally contended that the Board had not properly followed the procedures established by the RFP in awarding the contended that the Board had the RFP in awarding the contract to Thinkstream improperly applied additional contract In addition not established by beginning with paragraph 30 of the appeal Templar requested expedited discovery and 32 of the criteria Templar further an evidentiary hearing Paragraph appeal specifically stated Finally Templar is entitled to expedited discovery to determine whether any Policy Board or the Commission members retained stock ownership in Thinkstream or participated in private meetings regarding Thinkstream as the IC JIC Board Meeting Minutes attached as Exhibit 8 indicate that Colonel Mike Barnett of the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff s Office held stock in Thinkstream 1o On information and belief a public request for disclosure of Thinkstream s stockholders has been made by the State prior to the release of the RFP Footnote 10 provided Templar is particularly interested in this type of discovery due to the investigation of a complaint involving retiring Senator Ben Campbell and Thinkstream In that regard attached as Exhibit 9 is an article published April 16 2004 in the recent United States Senate Ethics Committee Denver Post On May 4 2004 counsel for Thinkstream wrote a letter to Mr to delete paragraph 32 and McGlinchey requesting that the appeal be amended footnote 10 The letter further stated that counsel had been instructed file suit immediately to recover damages 3 for these Rubin at unwarranted by his client and to untruthful if the allegations 2004 was requested amendments McGlinchey filed amended an a not made were motion to amend the Accordingly appeal petition petition of appeal that did not contain May 5 on Attached to the motion the allegedly offending paragraph and footnote On May 20 2004 the Commissioner issued had not followed the procedures set forth technical a review evaluation committee However stated by the contract In so position that the committee acted the Board itself was to act as the RFP with full power to award the contract the Commissioner concluded that there members was no evidence that the Board actually had performed the functions required of the evaluation committee RFP by the established s and that capacity ruling concluding that the Board by the RFP in awarding the ruling the Commissioner noted the Board only in a Accordingly the Commissioner vacated the award remanded the matter to the Board for further Rather than award the contract after RFP the Board proceedings to Thinkstream and consistent with the RFP complying with the procedures established simply abandoned the process and chose in the to use the funds set aside for the contract for another purpose Thinkstream Instead Commissioner of as on award In the action instituting judicial authorized June 21 Templar economic Templar v 2004 by LAC 34 based upon damage as a result of of decision Thinkstream filed of the suit against Templar s successful appeal of the contract V 145 11 alleged that Templar had business relations and 3 2 expired Templar had filed or its 1 intentionally and negligently made intentionally and negligently interfered with instituted delaying the awarding of the contract award had the Templar s baseless arbitrary and capricious appeal misrepresentations about Thinkstream or challenge original petition Thinkstream alleged that it had suffered tremendous Thinkstream further contract to legal proceedings for the sole purpose to Thinkstream until the time limitations of the could not be met Thinkstream also suggested in its contract award at the request of a appeal of the Boa rd 4 petition that member of the In response Templar filed peremptory exceptions pleading the objections of of action and cause heard however non joinder of necessary parties Thinkstream amended its Before these exceptions no were to add claims for defamation and petition alleged violations of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act 1 After fifteen trial days hearing a the trial court sustained the to amend its court then petition second time a Thinkstream petition Templar s motion face dismissal with by the trial an each Thinkstream subsequently filed Thinkstream then court unpublished opinion another panel of this court which dismissed the suit Templar Inc 05 1968 denied 07 0208 La 3 23 07 Thinkstream seeking to stay the new properly amended its petition never a suit motion for appealed the with new counsel thus on prejudice on trial which matter to this court court affirmed the against Templar with prejudice The prejudice opportunity to retain the trial court dismissed Thinkstream s February 15 2005 denied or granted two motions by Thinkstream proceedings for sixty days to allow Thinkstream and amend its exceptions and granted Thinkstream was In an judgment of the trial Thinkstream Inc v Rubin v 2 2005 On June 7 La 1st Cir App 12 28 06 947 So 2d 847 table 951 SO 2d 1106 after the trial court had dismissed the suit Thinkstream and Bellue filed this suit against Temp Paragraph 22 of the first amended petition raises allegations concerning the statements made original appeal to the Commissioner and states The actions of Templar since the original awarding of the contract including the baseless and the intentional and or arbitrary capricious appeal negligent Thinkstream s financial information the allegations in misrepresentations concerning Templar s appeal to the Division of Administration of private meetings between Thinkstream and the IOI5 Policy Board members while bid evaluations were taking place and allegations of Thinkstream s illegal influencing of IOI5 Policy Board voters by numerous methods including bribery and stock ownership made by Templar after the of the contract in addition to the purposeful delaying of the award original awarding until after the expiration of the practical time limitations of the federal grant constitute defamatory actions violations of unfair trade and practices violating the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and intentional and negligent interference with contractual and business relations causing tremendous economic damage to Thinkstream relating to 2 On this date awarding particular various defendants prejudice by unpublished In this including complaint the complaint in the federal plaintiffs asserted claims under a certain members of the Board the federal district court in the contract and to other law enforcement contracts Thinkstream and Bellue also filed district of Louisiana with of this ar against McGlinchey contending that McGlinchey 1 both the writ Thinkstream 5 These claims Inc v district court for the middle 42 U 5 C A were 1983 subsequently Adams 05 844JJB M D against dismissed La 2006 had defamed them by making certain allegations in the appeal to the Commissioner of s the of action pursuant to LSA CC P cause decision 3 the Board On November 3 2005 raising the objections of peremption action 4 These matters On and were set for McGlinchey filed art 971 prescription hearing on along with no cause special motion to strike a a peremptory exception of action leave to amend their petition McGlinchey for abuse of process and conspiracy expedited hearing on to assert 5 The the issue of the amendment should allow them to amend their petition prior no right of Monday January 23 2006 Friday January 20 2006 Thinkstream and Bellue filed order for and to combined motion a additional claims against plaintiffs further requested contending that the trial hearing McGlinchey an court objections and s motion to strike At the strike hearing the trial first The court peremptory exception After petition the further next determined followed were or any other official judicial body or court success on an their claim art 971 A plaintiffs cause were support of the special motion to strike McGlinchey support of the peremptory exception In proposed filed at the allegations amendment suggestion plaintiffs made relied a or granted judicial statements legislative executive See LSA C C P a art probability of on Templar 6 defamatory was In addition perempted pursuant to be held until further notice Plaintiffs 2005 many of the allegations suggesting of certain members of the Board in its earlier suit against not of action petition With the court determining that the plaintiffs In plaintiffs requested that service on the defendants finally requested service on McGlinchey by letter dated September 1 S to amend the the trial court concluded that the statements found in the trial court determined that the 4 by plaintiffs failed to establish paragraph 32 of the original administrative appeal In the McGlinchey s legislative executive bOdy authorized by law See LSA C C P to specifically found that the issue under consideration any other official had failed to meet their burden 3 consider proceeding authorized by law and that the The court further found that the 1 The court statements were made before a made in connection with 971 F would by the plaintiffs motion for leave special motion to strike in open proceeding it that special motion considering the evidence submitted by the parties the trial allegedly defamatory or court decided that it would address the that As noted above same arguments Templar s appeal raised in had been Thinkstream made similar LSA 5 R 9 5605 and determined that an prescribed pursuant to LSA C C art 3492 amendment would not motion for leave to amend the On February motion to strike and the dismissed defendants art 971 B 2006 problems and denied plaintiffs petition the trial court signed judgment granting the special a peremptory exception entitled to reasonable by the The and moot as attorney fees and amount to be determined an these dismissing the plaintiffs suit with prejudice defendants were in 7 cure The court further costs judgment further stated that the pursuant to LSA C C P court upon the filing of a rule to tax costs Finally the judgment denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the petition It is from this judgment that the plaintiffs have appealed ANALYSIS On appeal Thinkstream and Bellue contend that the trial applying the one intentional tort 3 year 2 peremption rule of LSA by finding that the 5 R case was 9 5605 to court erred a non client 1 by alleging prescribed under LSA C C art an 3492 by finding that the statements attributed to McGlinchey did not constitute actionable defamation before 4 by not addressing plaintiffs proposed taking up and ruling art 971 including plaintiffs did the McGlinchey s special motion request for attorney fees and not make intentional tort claim on the amendment to the costs requisite showing of a pleadings to strike under LSA C C P and 5 by finding that the probability of success on the against McGlinchey Special Motion to Strike The special motion to strike is governed by LSA C C P A art 971 which provides 1 A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person s right of petition or free speech under the United States or Louisiana Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability of success on the claim making its determination the court shall consider the pleadings supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based 2 In and 3 If the court determines that probability of success on in evidence at any later the plaintiff has established a the claim that determination shall be admissible stage of the proceeding 7 B party In any action subject to Paragraph A of this Article a prevailing special motion to strike shall be awarded reasonable attorney on a fees and costs C The the petition special motion may be filed within sixty days of service of in the court s discretion or court deems proper at any later time upon terms the The motion shall be noticed for hearing not more than thirty days after service unless the docket conditions of the require a later hearing court D All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the a notice of motion made pursuant to this Article The stay of filing shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on discovery the motion Notwithstanding the provisions of this Paragraph the court on noticed motion and for good cause shown may order that specified discovery be conducted of E This Article shall not apply to any enforcement action brought on behalf of the state of Louisiana by the attorney general district attorney or city attorney acting as a public prosecutor F As meanings used in this Article the ascribed to them below following terms shall unless the context have the clearly indicates otherwise Act in furtherance of 1 under the United States public issue a person s right of petition or free speech Louisiana Constitution in connection with a or a includes but is not limited to Any written oral or statement legislative executive or judicial proceeding authorized by law b with judicial body or other any a official writing made in connection by a legislative executive or other official body authorized by law any under consideration or writing made before proceeding written or oral statement Any an issue or or review or Any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public c interest d Any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest constitutional 2 3 action Petition Plaintiff or a legally includes either Defendant principal action review petition a or a granting of plaintiff a a includes either defendant or special motion legally incorrect 938 So 2d 792 795 findings of the trial On a or reconventional demand in a petitioner defendant respondent to strike regarding questions of law is simply correct or or a principal plaintiff or petitioner in reconvention 4 The includes either lamz v a on presents a Id 8 in question of law a Appellate review of whether the trial court Wells 05 1497 La legal issues the appellate court gives the record respondent in reconvention court but exercises its constitutional and renders judgment or duty to no App 1st Cir 6 special weight review was 9 06 to the questions of law Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 971 734 9 1 Section 2 of the Act was enacted by 1999 La Acts No provides The legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for redress of The legislature finds and declares that it is in the public grievances interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process To this end it is the intention of the legislature that the Article enacted pursuant to this Act shall be construed broadly Hence the Article 971 was enacted early stages of litigation to by the legislature of grievances Aymond 721 727 writ denied 06 1729 Pursuant to Article 971 furtherance of the person La 10 6 06 a cause Louisiana Constitution in connection with motion to strike probability of burdens of of action free the or a the claim against him arises from against free LSA C C P an act speech under the United States If the mover a 928 So 2d a person arising from any act in speech under the United States art the to a or special plaintiff has established 971 A mover must Under the l a shifting first establish that the cause by him in the exercise of his right of petition or Louisiana Constitution in connection with a or satisfies this initial burden of plaintiff to demonstrate 4 12 06 App 3rd Cir public issue shall be subject proof established by the article the public issue La unless the court determines that success on to chill the 938 SO 2d 85 of action right of petition s brought primarily rights of freedom of speech and petition for redress Dupree 05 1248 v procedural device to be used in meritless claims screen out valid exercise of the constitutional as a probability of success on proof the burden then shifts the claim to Aymond 928 SO 2d at 727 In the arose as from present an act it is case consideration or of action allegedly defamatory statements filed with the Commissioner were cause against McGlinchey by McGlinchey in furtherance of the right of petition the defendants made the comments undisputed that the written review by on behalf of statements an executive Templar made or a 9 in in the As such the connection judicial body or or free speech original appeal they allegedly defamatory with an issue any other official under body authorized burden by law of See LSA CC P art 971 proof probability of the success burden on shifted their claim l b F Once defendants met their initial to Thinkstream and to establish Bellue the against McGlinchey through the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability defense is or based Defamation A cause of action for defamation arises out of a violation of LSA C C art Defamation involves the invasion of name Fitzgerald maintain an action for defamation words 2 a unprivileged publication 129 98 2313 cause of action fails interest in his s La 6 29 99 or her reputation and good 737 So 2d 706 plaintiffs have the burden of proving 3 falsity lamz 938 So 2d at 797 resulting injury lacking the Tucker v person Costello 4 If v actual even one or 1 715 To defamatory implied malice of these 2315 and required elements Hardy 03 1146 La 5 is 864 SO 2d 1 21 04 140 Defamatory words are him in the estimation of the lamz 938 SO 2d at 798 dishonesty or of whether a disrepute are those that harm the community Words that defamatory communication is The a deter others from convey personal disgrace at 716 legal question for the question a listener could have in context to have been intended in a Id to the Commissioner were not the record and the The Costello 864 So 2d court In this matter the trial court determined that the statements in Templar s appeal lower associating with him element of question is answered by determining whether sense so as to particular meaning and whether that a reasonably understood the communication taken defamatory an Fitzgerald 737 So 2d capable of meaning is defamatory is ultimately at 140 or to reputation of another defamatory specific statements contained trial court s conclusion Although plaintiffs in Based upon paragraph 32 support such an interpretation 10 we our review of agree with the insist that the statements accuse them of bribing public officials and other potentially criminal activities statements does not paragraph 32 of A fair our reading of the reading of the statements supports the defendants position that they were attempting to obtain discovery concerning the identities of Thinkstream s stockholders the Board in awarding the Furthermore contract we note the criteria applied by to carry their burden of proof with as well as 6 that the plaintiffs failed regard to the malice element of a cause of the tort of defamation lack of reasonable belief in the truth of the defamatory statement is a See Costello of action for defamation 864 So 2d at 143 Malice for purposes Only when it is found that statement has been made without reasonable grounds for believing it to be making the statement be found by malice person McCool v 582 So 2d 262 265 La demonstrates that the statements supported by publicly available an article in the Denver Post within one to be motivated App 1st Cir 1991 made in sources the In this matter the evidence appeal to the Commissioner a Board were meeting and McGlinchey removed the offending conclude that the record is devoid of any evidence of ill will probability of probability of success success motion to strike 6 Redmond statements day after counsel for Thinkstream demanded their removal Accordingly McGlinchey against the plaintiffs on Thus their claim by the plaintiffs the plaintiffs did In the cause In their brief to this court or malice not and on the we part of establish a absence of the establishment of a of action shall be Therefore the trial court did not a true can the ill will or including the minutes of Moreover allegedly err in cannot subject to the special granting the motion the defendants contend that the statements made in the Statements made in the appeal of to the judicial protected by qualified privilege subject to a qualified privilege if the statements are material to the proceeding and are made with probable cause and without malice Freeman v Cooper 414 So 2d 355 359 La 1982 However the existence of a qualified privilege is an affirmative defense that must be specially pled See v Sheriff of East Baton 05 1418 La 7 10 06 935 So 2d 669 682 LSA C C P art Kennedy Rouge 1005 Because McGlinchey did not file an answer to the plaintiffs petition the issue of qualified privilege has not yet been specially pled by the defendants or addressed by the trial court Accordingly that issue is not properly before us at this time Commissioner proceeding 7 are a course a are McGlinchey was involved in a conspiracy with members of the Board and Templar in an effort to prevent Thinkstream from receiving the contract from the Board Although the plaintiffs attempted to introduce evidence to support this claim in the trial court and have continued to make the argument on appeal the actions allegedly supporting the existence of the conspiracy were Plaintiffs have actions taken The on plaintiffs argued that by Templar have and certain Board members before the defendants attempted inference and innuendo the defendants were involved in a 11 involved in the matter but such attribution is based McGlinchey absolutely no evidence provided conspiracy if any such conspiracy existed to attribute these actions to Plaintiffs have were to support only their claim that Amendment of the Petition Plaintiffs also contend amend their As a to petition prior preliminary matter determining the order on appeal that the trial court erred deciding the issue of McGlinchey we in not special motion s note that trial courts are vested with in which they will handle allowing them to to strike great discretion matters on their dockets in Appellate courts interfere in trial court matters such as control of a docket case and determination of whether with reluctance and in extreme 167 169 Perkins cases After a a continuance should be Willie v 01 0821 App 1st Or 2 27 02 review of the attendant circumstances not abuse its discretion in its determination of the Plaintiffs argue that defects in the La granted only they have pleadings pursuant these articles authorize a a management we 818 So 2d find that the trial court did special motion to strike first statutory right to amend their lawsuit to to LSA C C P 932 A arts and 934 correct It is true that plaintiff to amend his petition when the grounds of the objections raised by the declinatory and peremptory exceptions may be removed by such amendment an However exceptions only and they make Because the trial court before the Moreover 932 A such no we note that in its discretion even the cure above articles were cure declinatory and peremptory the objections was special motion to strike special motion to strike are applicable only require that the plaintiff be granted amendment would the to chose to hear the if these articles specifically found that the plaintiffs suit not apply reference whatsoever to the peremptory exception and 934 an these articles an simply suit against McGlinchey On McGlinchey requesting that 2004 Articles opportunity to amend when raised in the exceptions prescribed and that an The trial court amendment would objections allegedly defamatory statements for paragraph applicable to this matter The evidence in the record is clear that Bellue and Thinkstream the not May 4 a than one year unwarranted and untruthful original appeal petition letter to the Commissioner 12 aware of prior to the date they filed counsel for Thinkstream sent 2004 it remove the 32 and footnote 10 of the Bellue wrote more were very letter to allegations of In addition concerning the a on May 20 damaging and slanderous statements about the appeal petition the Thus June 7 2005 14 16 to those See proceedings Simpson Plaintiffs state that filed within In one general underlying litigation they did 7 does not arise until the the truth of the 132 suit 8 9 proceedings Another in which 110 SO 2d 553 were 8 to proceed reason is in an that the 561 removed they are made 1959 orderly fashion of action cause on May 5 2004 only At that thus art 3492 loew point the one Furthermore more run than were no on one because the year original same very similar defamation claims against Templar within two weeks of decision granting the appeal and that it was only when that suit was the trial court that Thinkstream and Bellue we the brought of the Commissioner s by v day after statements prescription began to 9 Inc s In this matter however Accordingly plaintiffs suit filed untimely pursuant to LSA C C We note that Thinkstream Because requiring the termination of the untimely any proposed amendment to the suit arising out of the was receipt 887 SO 2d disagree part of the underlying litigation was dismissed We requested their removal defamation claim at that time later 7 14 04 1st Cir they contend that this suit is timely since present Id in the 237 La counsel for Thinkstream a App underlying litigation allegedly defamatory statements longer La are party making the allegations has had the opportunity of proving allegations George Inc general rule that not receive notice of the Commissioner s decision 2004 thus is to allow the the on brought until those proceedings for the above rule reason against McGlinchey until allegations made in judicial proceedings and cannot be year of that date the of were aware May 20 2004 timely relying Perry 03 0116 v without the issue of defamation Don later than out of arising granting the appeal until June was no that Thinkstream and Bellue Plaintiffs contend that the suit is party a terminated the dispute Thinkstream and Bellue did not file suit action for defamation against it no allegedly defamatory statements Nevertheless an there is management of Thinkstream contained in the original find that the matter is peremptive period provided by LSA sought to file the instant suit against McGlinchey prescribed we do not address the question applicable to this matter 5 R 9 5605 is 13 of whether the transaction or occurrence amend their also would be untimely original untimely petition would Therefore serve no allowing the plaintiffs to lO purpose CONCLUSION For the this appeal foregoing reasons assessed to are the judgment of the trial court is affirmed All costs of plaintiffs Thinkstream Inc and Barry Bellue AfFIRMED 10 motion for leave to amend their in the trial court However in oral argument not needed because the plaintiffs suggested permission Pursuant to LSA C C P art 1151 a defendants had not yet filed an answer at the time of the hearing leave of court at any time before the answer thereto is served plaintiff may amend his petition without In response defendants have contended that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to amend their petition Plaintiffs filed a before this court for any the petition that the trial court s special motion to strike has been filed However because we have found that we need petition would be untimely since the original petition is prescribed reason once a amendment to the was address these arguments 14 any not STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2006 CA 1595 THINKSTREAM INC AND BARRY BELLUE VERSUS MICHAEL H RUBIN DEBORAH D HARKINS EMILY B GREY AND McGLINCHEY STAFFORD PLLC McCLENDON J I claims concur to be concurs in the result reached prescribed by the majority finding the plaintiffs
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
