* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60771

In re: STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY

Petitioner

Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the 

Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport

(06-CV-1080)

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner State Farm Fire & Casualty Company has requested a writ of

mandamus to require the district court to disqualify Richard F. Scruggs, the

Scruggs Law Firm, P.A., and the Scruggs Katrina Group from representing the

plaintiffs in the case of Thomas C. and Pamela McIntosh versus State Farm Fire

& Casualty Company, Case No. 1:06-CV-1080-LTS-RHW, presently pending

before Judge L.T. Senter, Jr., in the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi. The underlying lawsuit is an insurance

coverage dispute arising from damage to the plaintiffs’ home following Hurricane

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 19, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60771

2

Katrina. Scruggs and his law firm also currently represent or have represented

hundreds of other plaintiffs against State Farm in similar lawsuits that are

either pending or have settled.

State Farm seeks the disqualification of Scruggs and his firm because it

contends that Scruggs violated the rules of ethics and committed professional

misconduct by communicating ex parte and receiving confidential claims-related

documents from two employees of E.A. Renfroe and Co., Inc., an independent

company that provided claims adjusters to State Farm following the devastation

of Hurricane Katrina. The district court determined that because State Farm

had known about Scruggs’ alleged improper conduct while it negotiated with

Scruggs in the other suits but made no complaint, State Farm had waived its

claim for disqualification. The court held that Scruggs should not be disqualified

in the underlying case or in any other similar lawsuits pending in the Southern

District of Mississippi.

State Farm argues that the district court’s refusal to disqualify Scruggs

was legal error and thatits own delay in seeking disqualification does notjustify

denial of the motion where its claims implicate the public perception of the legal

system. State Farm sets forth a list of alleged ethical violations by Scruggs.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is appropriate only

“‘when the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction or has declined to exercise it,

or when the trial court has so clearly and indisputably abused its discretion as

to compel prompt intervention by the appellate court.’” In re Dresser Indus.,

Inc., 972 F.2d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). “Merely showing that

the district court erred is insufficient to obtain mandamus relief.” In re Avantel,

S.A., 343 F.3d 311, 317 (5th Cir. 2003). Before issuing the writ, a court must

find the following: “(1) the party seeking issuance of the writ [must] have no

other adequate means to attain the relief he desires; (2) the petitioner must

satisfy the burden of showing that [his] right to issuance of the writ is clear and
No. 07-60771

3

indisputable; and (3) even if the first two prerequisites have been met, the

issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is

appropriate under the circumstances.” In re United States, 397 F.3d 274, 282

(5th Cir. 2005) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted).

In light of all the circumstances in the instant case, State Farm fails to

show thatits right to the writ is so clear and indisputable thatintervention from

this court is necessary, and we are not persuaded that the writ is appropriate.

Denial of a motion to disqualify will rarely justify the issuance of a writ of

mandamus. In re American Airlines, Inc., 972 F.2d 605, 608 (5th Cir. 1992).

Although State Farm argues that the public interest in upholding ethical

violations is paramount here, attorney disqualification “is a sanction that must

not be imposed cavalierly.” FDIC v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 50 F.3d 1304, 1316 (5th

Cir. 1995). Without deciding the contested issue of ethics, we are satisfied that

Judge Senter has carefully weighed the balance between the need to ensure

ethical conduct on the part of lawyers and other social interests, including

litigants’ right to choose their counsel. See Woods v. Covington County Bank,

537 F.2d 804, 810 (5th Cir. 1976). State Farm has failed to show the

extraordinary circumstances necessary for relief.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is

DENIED.