The defendants argue that the Gibson plaintiffs' attempt to intervene is merely a strategy to monopolize settlement recovery and attorney fees, rather than a genuine concern for competition.
They emphasize that allowing a transfer of jurisdiction to Missouri would disrupt the progress already made, imposing undue prejudice on the parties involved and delaying crucial relief for class members.
The joint motion points out that renegotiating the terms of the settlements could undo months of negotiation efforts and resources invested in reaching a resolution.
Furthermore, the defendants assert that the Western District of Missouri doesn't have personal jurisdiction over Georgia-based firms like Higher Tech and Atlanta Communities, showing the convenience issues involved.
Collection
[
|
...
]