|
NASFA
Home l Contact NASFA
Judge's Final Order in NASFA
v. State Farm
Judge Leonard Braman issued his final order in the NASFA
vs. State Farm lawsuit January 26, 2006.
Click here to
download a copy.
Click here for a brief explanation of the order.
Click here to view a
20-minute video explaining the results.
Judge's Decision in NASFA
v. State Farm
In a
decision received Tuesday, December 20, 2005, Judge Leonard Braman ruled in favor of NASFA on two significant issues
in its lawsuit against State Farm. He found the
Partner Agent Program and the Select Agent Program to be
violations of all agent’s agreements.
Click here to read the 76-page
decision. CAUTION:
This is a large
file and may take some time to download. If you do not
have a high speed connection, you will have to be
patient. The document is in PDF
format. Please download the free
Adobe Reader if you do not have it on your computer.
Post Trial Summaries
Both NASFA and State Farm
were required to submit the following summaries
following the trial.
NASFA
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Post Trial Memorandum
Post Trial
Memorandum in Response to State Farm's Memorandum
NASFA's
Comments on State Farm's Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law
State Farm
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Post Trial
Memorandum
Post Trial
Memorandum in Response to NASFA's Memorandum
State Farm's
Comments on NASFA's Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law
Trial Transcripts
NASFA had its days in
court July 26 - August 1 as NASFA vs. State Farm went to
trial nearly four years after it was filed. Judge Braman
decided to hear each issue separately. Here are
transcripts regarding each issue. Each file is indexed
to help you find information of particular interest to
you.
Partner
Agent Program
Brokering
Writing Restrictions
Internet
Sales
Select Agent
Program
Mandatory Meetings
Closing
Arguments
Summary Judgment
Documents
Transcript of
Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment
On May 16, attorneys for
NASFA and State Farm appeared before Judge Braman for
oral arguments on summary judgment motions that have
been pending since August, 2004. The judge rejected most
of the motions for summary judgment from both sides.
This means that contract violations alleged by NASFA
such as the Partner Program, Select Agent, Internet
Sales, mandatory meetings, as well as other claims
relating to the limitation of sales and the prohibition
of brokering, all survived State Farm’s summary judgment
motions. Note: This
transcript is a 6MB file and may take some time to
download.
2005 05 16:
Hearing on Motions for Summary Judgment
Motion for
Summary Judgment
A Motion for Summary Judgment is an opportunity for a
party to contest the factual sufficiency of a
party's claim before a Judge alone rather than at a
trial. A Motion for Summary Judgment advises the Court
that a party believes that there are no issues of
material fact and that the case can be decided as a
matter of law. In this case, both State Farm and NASFA
have filed Motions for Summary Judgment. In support of a
Motion for Summary Judgment a party must submit a
variety of documents to the Court for its consideration
so that it may determine whether or not the Court
believes there is no issue of material fact and the case
can be decided as a matter of law.
2004 06 07: NASFA's Motion for Summary Judgment
2004 05 06: State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment
Briefs in Support and Opposition to Motions
The lawyers are afforded the opportunity at the
time a Motion is submitted to set forth their arguments
of both fact and law to the Court. The purpose of a
Brief is to advise the Court what facts we think are
significant and then point out to the Court other cases
which we believe have properly addressed the issue in
other jurisdictions to help the Court in deciding the
facts and law in this case. As you can see, Briefs when
there are multiple issues can be very lengthy.
2004 06 07: NASFA's Memorandum of Law and Argument
2004 08 19: NASFA's
Final Response
2004 05 06: State Farm's Memorandum of Law and Argument
2004 07
23: State Farm's Final Response
Statement of
Undisputed Facts in Support of Motion for Summary
Judgment
Each party is given an opportunity in support
of its Motion for Summary Judgment and in fact is
required, to supply the Court with what it believes are
the 'uncontroverted facts' which support its claim that
a summary judgment is appropriate. While you wouldn't
know it from reading the uncontroverted facts submitted
by the parties in this case, they are supposed to be
short and to the point and 'material' facts for
determination of the issues in the case. At least in
State Farm's case they have gone well beyond what would
be considered a 'material' fact in support of their
motion. A material fact is one which has some bearing on
one of the claims or defenses of the parties to the
case. You can decide for yourself whether or not you
believe, first of all that their uncontroverted facts
are correct, and second of all whether or not the facts
that they are submitting to the Court are material to
the claims being presented.
2004 06 07: NASFA's Undisputed Facts
2004 05 06: State Farm's Undisputed Facts
Response to Uncontroverted Facts
In the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, NASFA was afforded the opportunity to respond
to the uncontroverted facts submitted by State Farm. The
nice thing about this particular pleading is that it has
the State Farm allegation and NASFA's response right
after it.
2004 06 07: NASFA's Response to State Farm's Undisputed
Facts
Affidavits
An Affidavit is a statement given by a person
in a lawsuit in support or opposition to a claim. With
regard to the Motions for Summary Judgment, Affidavits
have been submitted by the attorneys and the parties.
The purpose of the Affidavits by the parties are to try
and explain or fill in the blanks around certain facts
that may not be as clear as a person would like, but
wants the Court to understand and consider in deciding
the motion. An Affidavit doesn't contain all of the
facts in this case. It only contains additional facts
that the parties want the Judge to consider.
2004
06 07: Affidavit of David Swift, NASFA President
More NASFA v. State Farm
Documents
2003 10 28 - Order on Defendants' Motion to Compel
2003 04 09 - Notice to take Depositions
2003 04 09 - Plaintiff's First Request for Production of
Documents
2003 04 09 - Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories
2003 01 07 - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction
2003 01 07 - Plaintiff's Memo of Law in Support of its
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
2003 01 07 - Order To Grant Preliminary Injunction
2003 01 06 - Affidavit of David Swift
2002 08 02 - Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in
Opposition To Defendant Motion To Dismiss
2002 07 01 - Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss
Complaint
2001 11 01 - Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive
Relief |
