Skip to content
Eastland stands behind Motion to...

Eastland stands behind Motion to Dismiss – cross-claim filed for Patterson in Wilson v Scruggs

By: Magnolia Tribune - November 18, 2009

Eastland stands behind Motion to Dismiss – Greer files cross-claim for Patterson in Wilson v Scruggs

Big football weekend here in the land of the slabbed; but, no sports channel was covering the settlement game – and one is definitely playing in Wilson v Scruggs.

Almost simultaneously with their settlement with Team Scruggs, Team Wilson filed a weak response to co-defendant Steve Patterson’s Motion to Dismiss – an obvious incentive to settle.

Apparently, it was also incentive for Eastland to stick with the playbook while co-counsel Greer went with the legal equivalent of wild Rebel and filed a cross-claim for Patterson that suggests there is still more to learn about the money paid Ed Peters:

Patterson’s only involvement in the circumstances surrounding this action was that he was asked by Scruggs’ representatives to find local counsel in Jackson, Mississippi, for the Wilson asbestos case. Patterson had known Attorney Ed Peters (“Peters”) for years and recommended Peters to Scruggs as local counsel. The only action taken by Patterson was introducing Scruggs and his legal team to Peters so that Peters could be the consulting local counsel in the Wilson litigation.

At no time did Patterson have any direct contact with Circuit Judge, Bobby DeLaughter, nor did he attend any meetings when Judge DeLaughter was present. Specifically, Patterson never committed any criminal act whatsoever, such as bribery or fraud, and never committed any act which would amount to general negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract or any other action of whatsoever kind which would cause, contribute to, or relate in any way to any damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Scruggs is guilty of bribing Judge DeLaughter, and defrauding the plaintiff, by and through Peters, and that those actions caused a favorable result in the Wilson case. Patterson had no involvement at all in those circumstances other than introducing Scruggs to the local counsel, Peters. Patterson received no funds, was not compensated in any way, shape or form…and was completely unaware of the possibility that Scruggs would allegedly perform any criminal act of any sort to bring potential liability upon himself and others.

Scruggs, according to plaintiff, is allegedly guilty of the crimes charged to him in regard to Judge DeLaughter and has pled guilty to some of the same. Therefore, by his own admission, he is guilty of a crime which is one of the elements requiring common law indemnity in favor of Patterson if Patterson had any vicarious responsibility.

Read more at Slabbed

About the Author(s)
author profile image

Magnolia Tribune

This article was produced by Y'all Politics staff.