 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Crook v. Jock7/13/2005
directed Mr. Crook and [counsel for Defendant] to go into an adjoining jury room and have discussions. The following paragraph will adequately detail what occurred in the negotiations, and what happened afterwards. . . .
6. Once seated in the jury room, [counsel for Defendant] asked, "Mr. Crook, what is it that you want?" . . . Plaintiff replied that he wanted installment payments of $100.00 each month for five (5) months, totaling $500.00. Plaintiff also requested that the Defendant be taxed the costs of the cause. [Counsel for Defendant] left the room to confer with the Defendant. When [he returned], . . . [counsel for Defendant] offered: (1) no installment payments, (2) a split bill of costs, and (3) he demanded that part of the agreement would be that Defendant and Plaintiff be restricted to forever sta ing over one thousand (1,000) fee from each other. Plaintiff said that this was ludicrous because, since she had "framed" him three other times since August 15, 2003[,] Plaintiff felt that Defendant would vindictively frame him for violating a consent order. Plaintiff clearly informed [counsel for Defendant] that injunctions cannot be included in any agreement for dismissal.
7. On the 5th, Plaintiff's confusion caused him to give the false impression to counsel and the Court that he was consenting to counsel's proposed injunctive agreement. Plaintiff told counsel he must remove the injunctive ideas. Back in open court, Plaintiff told Judge Brown that he w[ould] only consent if there were no "unfair restrictions" included in counsel's proposed document. Then Judge Brown instructed [counsel for Defendant] to prepare an agreement and consent order of dismissal, and mail it to Plaintiff before Monday, January 12, 2004. . . .
8. . . . During the week of January 5 to January 12, Plaintiff intently awaited [counsel for Defendant's] document, but it was never sent. Remembering that the Judge instructed Plaintiff to appear on January 12 if he disagreed with anything in the mailed document, Plaintiff rushed to the Court on the 12th. Judge Brown asked Plaintiff why he was there that day, and he replied that counsel had failed to send him the consent agreement, whereupon, the judge lowered his head into his hand. At that moment, [counsel for Defendant] extended his right arm with the document in it. . . . Before Plaintiff had a chance to inspect it, Judge Brown asked the Court Clerk to give the Plaintiff pen and paper, and then he told Plaintiff to go sit down and write his own Agreement and Consent Order of Dismissal. . . . [Plaintiff] obeyed as instructed. After about twenty (20) minutes of deleting some of counsel's provisions and additional writings, the judge came back in and was handed Plaintiff's notations and deletions. . . . Immediately, Plaintiff gave notice to the Court and [counsel for Defendant] that he was not going to sign the Order prepared by counsel, and the judge instructed the Court Clerk to make note of that, and then Judge Brown rendered the Order as proposed by [counsel for Defendant]. . . . Plaintiff asked Judge Brown: "What remedy would I have for this decision today?" Plaintiff was ignored and given a copy of the Order with his name stamped on it.
9. On January 7, 2004, Plaintiff had hand-delivered a letter to [counsel for Defendant] stating if the so-called Agreement had those injunctions included, he would not consent and there would have to be a trial; however, nowhere in that letter did Plaintiff say not to mail him that document . . . .
The following facts are provided by the Defendant:
11. On January 5, 2004, this matter was set for trial before the Honorable George Brown. Judge Brown directed counsel and Mr. Crook
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|