- 7 -
Phoenix cases. Petitioners had the same representatives in all
pending cases, whereas respondent was represented by Ms. Durning
in the Phoenix cases and Mr. Carriger in the Omaha case.
Mr. Stientjes (without respondent’s counsels’ knowledge)
made a recording of the March 2, 2006, telephone conversation. A
transcript of the conversation was attached to one of
petitioners’ documents filed in connection with the motion to
enforce settlement and entry of decision. The March 2
conversation began with Mr. Stientjes accusing Mr. Carriger of
being “dishonest” for advising on February 21 “that we have a
settlement” and subsequently advising that respondent is “going
to raise a new issue.” Mr. Carriger, in response to the
accusation, stated that he did not think his actions were
dishonest “because the issue that we thought we had a settlement
on, we do. Which is the cash contribution. At the time
[February 21, 2006] I was not aware that the noncash
contributions were even at issue.”
The next matter of substance was Mr. Stientjes’s observation
to Mr. Carriger that he “can’t tell * * * [Mr. Stientjes that] we
are settling the only issue in the case and then, a week later,
tell * * * [Mr. Stientjes that respondent is] raising a new issue
and we haven’t settled the whole case a week before.” Mr.
Carriger responded that there was no prohibition upon the raising
of an issue after settlement of the sole issue in the case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011