ANDERSON — Attorneys for both sides had a positive spin on this week’s dismissal of a counter-lawsuit against former Anderson County administrator Michael Cunningham.
“We don’t view this as a concession,” said Brian Murphy, Cunningham’s attorney.
“This is a good development for the county,” said Grant Burns, the county’s attorney in this case.
It’s an even better development for Cunningham because the dismissal means the worst-case scenario for him would be losing the case and having to pay Murphy’s legal fees out of his pocket.
Before the dismissal, the county had been seeking punitive damages and legal fees from Cunningham. Dismissing the case with prejudice means the county cannot get that money from Cunningham now or at any time in the future.
The county’s dismissed counterclaim alleged that Cunningham was involved in a civil conspiracy to award himself a contract with a severance package.
The county is no longer contending that Cunningham was part of a civil conspiracy, although that could be part of its defense, said Burns.
Burns, a lawyer with the Nexsen Pruet law firm, works for both the council’s investigation and the county.
Burns said the county would continue to use parts of the dismissed countersuit in its defense because withdrawing the suit does not mean that the county’s claims were invalid.
“The facts are still the facts,” he said.
Cunningham’s original lawsuit, filed April 22, is still pending. The suit says he is owed more than $350,000 in severance pay plus benefits and legal fees.
He was fired March 2.
Murphy said county officials came to him and offered to drop the counterclaims if Cunningham would talk to investigators. He said Cunningham has talked with investigators once and would consider further meetings if the county makes the request.
“There was no agreement that Michael would say anything for or against anybody in exchange for them dropping the claim with prejudice,” Murphy said.
He said Cunningham would have been willing to meet with investigators before but the pending countersuit made it difficult to trust those investigators, who worked for those suing him.
The dismissal of the county’s countersuit does not change the timeline of Cunningham’s original lawsuit, said Murphy and Burns.
The case is still expected to last many months, or even a year, both attorneys said.
Right now both sides are in discovery phase, asking for names of witnesses and other evidence that could come up during court proceedings.
Murphy said the county has not requested anything from him through discovery and the county has just sent in its first responses to his discovery requests.
“We’re putting together our own request to Cunningham and should have that to him in the next week,” Burns said.
He said the county would likely be taking depositions late this summer from people who helped to draft Cunningham’s contract.
The dismissal papers were signed by Burns last Thursday but did not become official until the court filed them Monday.
The $350,000 Cunningham is seeking would put a big strain on the county’s budget if the former administrator won his court case. County officials anticipate winning the case and did not set aside any money for a settlement while planning the budget.
“I expect little to no budget implications in the decision I made,” said interim county administrator Rusty Burns. The administrator said it was his decision to drop the countersuit.
Concord Elementary is IB Authorized
East-West Connecto…
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 21
Bubba writes:
Cunningham will, in the end, receive about 1/3rd of what he wants in exchange for his state evidence and testimony. Cunningham will never be hired by Anderson County under any conditions as administrator or garbage collector or whatever. Too many people will remember what Cunningham has done to our county to please his idol, Joey Ray.
Mike, what does your source, Gracie Floyd, have to say about all this? She has always had your ear and she is your admitted source on council, so, tell us her opinion.
andersonnativejtm writes:
State evidence? This isn't a prosecution. It's a civil suit.
edwinjones writes:
Go for the jugular Michael!!
bigredmachine writes:
Dude, get your head out of the clouds. Cunningham had a valid contract that was breached by the County. He is going to get every dime he is entitled to under the contract. The fact that the County dismissed its frivolous counterclaim tells you where this is headed--Settlement with payment in full and a confidentiality agreement.
Mon_amie writes:
County evidence is that the county wrongfully fired Mr. Cunningham and owe him the remainder of his contract. The evidence in general points to some people responding here being lapdogs to the current council who get fed small bits of information that they twist for their own purposes.
Thanks and have a great day!!!!
StupidShouldHurtMore writes:
DJ Bubba,
Keep spinning. While you're mixing the tunes of the new council be sure to remember that "denial" isn't just a river in Egypt.
To Mike C: The people of this county are behind you. Our thoughts and prayers are with you. Stay the course.
To Mike E: Welcome back.
- SSHM
DOWJONES writes:
Things are looking good for Michael!
reid writes:
gee the anderson county buffoons (council) cutting their losses..lower lawyers bill... they will still b stuck for the origanal 350k fo ILLEGALLY FIRING n breaching mr cunningham's contract....heard the clown college has offered the council scholarships lol
In_Search_Of_Truth writes:
Bubba, don't you worry one bit. All these people trying to mislead the public with their ridiculous spin are here for one reason, they don't like the truth.
Since they don't like the facts the way they are they have to spin, rephrase and remanufacture them to their liking. They start jumping up when one of them "misinterprets" the news for them. They jump up and down thinking they have achieved some victory for their cause of keeping the county in the dark or protecting those under investigation.
That is because that is all they have. Propaganda and made up stuff. When the truth is revealed, darn so many times it turns out they were totally wrong...AGAIN. But while the facts are not clear they can claim whatever they like and jump up and down with rejoicing because it makes them look so much more foolish when the real facts are revealed.
Let them eat cake, because soon they will be eating bologna sandwiches.
DWade writes:
Bubba, you really are a blowhard that makes all kinds of wild assumptions/accusations, without any support for what you are talking about. In the last article, you claimed MC had met with the investigators multiple times. Mr. Murphy cleared that up for you (one time to date). Who is your source? Those voices that speak to you when you're alone?
As one person said, this is not a state investigation....it is merely an investigation for the County, ordered by CC. And most likely, it will end up being use of taxpayer $$ to show the County did not have policies and procedures in place to prevent the occurrence of actions that look/feel like an abuse of authority, but were in no way illegal or against County procedures, because procedures to prevent them were not in place.
At the end of the day: a) Cunningham will get his $350,000 severance and insurance and other benefits, his legal fees paid, and if it goes to trial, punitive damages will be awarded by a jury, and b) JP will keep his $1.1 million, and the citizens may find out some hard lessens were learned, and hopefully procedures will be put in place to prevent these things in the future.
And even with that, you will be blasting the evils of JP, and proclaiming that Mark Sanford and our first mistress should be the next president of the U.S.
Bless your heart.
Bubba writes:
DWade, in his obnoxious and blowhard way, said "a) Cunningham will get his $350,000 severance and insurance and other benefits, his legal fees paid, and if it goes to trial, punitive damages will be awarded by a jury, and b) JP will keep his $1.1 million.."
Wade, please give us your source for those unfounded facts. You and your band of Prestonite brothers can not recognize a fact until a judge reads it to you and I think some of you will have that ending.
You are misleading your group. The general public has enough sense to understand facts and they know what has been going on in our county for the past 12 years. Where were you during those years? I'll be glad when the new honest council group of 5 takes your computer away from you for evidence.
In_Search_Of_Truth writes:
There is one little problem with your theory in giving these people a pass on their activities.
1. They changed the rules and ordinances to allow them to do these things.
2. They were the same people responsible for putting in place such rules and practices to keep this from happening.
You can't allow people to changes the laws, take advantage of those changes and then claim they have broken no law. It just means the conspiracy goes further back and includes more people. There is no doubt this was a long term plan on the part of Preston and that he was very adept at finding/creating loopholes for himself. The point is was all of this done for self enrichment or the enrichment of others in exchange for power, or was it demonstrably for the benefit of the citizens of this county. The proof is in who all these machinations benefited. Preston and the Gang of Five had a fiduciary duty to the citizens of this county. If it is found to have been breached, then it is what it is and all your song and dance won't cover.
Those are the salient questions.
Bubba writes:
I completely agree with you Truth. That group is hopeless and beyond reason. They will not believe it when when the cuffs are put on their buddies anymore than they believe it now.
Keep posting Truth!!
StupidShouldHurtMore writes:
ISOT,
We've heard for years what you elude to in paragraph three:
"When the truth is revealed . . ."
I would have to point to this very balanced and complete article that spells out the truth. That article is the one you and I are commenting on.
As for this great revealing of the truth . . .
Books-A-Million called: They want to know what the hold-up is with delivering "that paperback."
Blockbuster called: They want to know when you plan on returning the Caters Lake video you rented back in 2006.
Keep spinning. DJ Bubba has you beat at the moment with his galloping TB rap.
TB? True Believerism.
- SSHM
DWade writes:
This fiduciary duty you speak of....is it in writing somewhere, specifically spelled out? Actually, you make my point quite well. JP and others may have taken advantage of the system, and there may have been an agreement among some to do so. But proving a conspiracy took place, and who benefitted, and how.....it feels good to pound your chest and say, wow, we're doing the right thing with this investigation, and we're going to bring justice. It's quite another to actually bring it to fruition.
JP was MC's boss. JP may have actually hired MC (I do not know.....I lived away from the area for 10 years, prior to returning 2 years ago). By chain of command, that means he answers to him. That does not mean MC is a bad person, or did he force on anyone for the County to enter into a contract with him, that included a severance agreement.
In regards to JP and his severance payout, in the end, I do believe it will come down to, did the people that entered into this agreement have the authority to do so....if they did, he will keep the $$$.....simple as that....it might not feel good, but the only indictment I believe that will become of those 5 you speak to, and JP is they will not hold office in Anderson County again.
Similarly, as to what is playing out with Sanford. The price he will pay will be he will not win another election, in SC, on a ticket in the future. All of these that are calling for his resignation, such as Mr. Barrett, because they seem to think they represent the "moral conscience" of SC citizens......be careful what you ask for, and quite honestly, there are a bunch, like him, right now, that are doing this political grandstanding for their personal political gain in the future. Much like Sanford has committed political suicide, JP and these 5 council members most likely have done the same to themselves, but that is probably the only justice the citizens of Anderson County will see, no matter how loud Bubba screams, and how many wild, baseless predictions he makes.
DWade writes:
I am not for or against Preston. I left Anderson, shortly after Preston took over, and moved to Greenville County, after relocating back to the area. So none of his actions have effected to me. I do have family members, however, that live in Anderson.
As for my basis for Preston....well, let's see, there is a written severance agreement entered into by Anderson County that awarded Preston a $1.1 million severance, and a good chunk of it has been conveyed to him. The burden of proof, now is on Anderson County to show this conspiracy you speak of.
Bubba, you predicted, with no facts to base it on the County will settle with MC for 1/3 of $350,000 to make this go away. My prediction is his attorney will advise him to not settle for that amount, and thus will go for the $350,000, which may result in this ending up in court, unless Anderson County wants to save face and settle. He has a signed agreement that is clear as to what the terms are, whether it feels good to you or others, or not. Unless Anderson County can show that MC committed offenses that warranted termination, and not honoring the contract it had with him, he will get paid. The burden of proof will end up being on Anderson County.
In_Search_Of_Truth writes:
SSHM we know you have no interest whatsoever in answers or the truth. You have had a clear agenda of misinformation, disinformation and propaganda since the primaries last year. Either you are angling for a job or are getting paid for the amount of time and effort you have put into derailing the investigation, demeaning current council, supporting Preston and his actions in every way possible. No one supports someone that much and with the intensity you have unless they have an agenda. Yours has changed so many times we aren't sure what it is.
But you keep posting away. When the end result comes, I am sure you will be nowhere to be found.
Jack_Ruby writes:
The way I hear it, the reason the county is dropping the counter suit because the counter suit opened the county up to MUCH more liability on discovery.....
oops!
In_Search_Of_Truth writes:
You must be hearing it from the lips of people interested in derailing the investigation. Wait until you "hear" it from an official source before you make such conclusions. Even this newspaper seems to mess up the facts when it comes to reporting legal things. "Legalese" trips up more than your average reader. Someone will step forward and straighten out the confusion created by AIMs first report.
So far, all I know for a fact, is what I read on the PICase website.
Cunningham, Michael Summons & Complaint Filing 04/22/2009
Cunningham, Michael ADR/Alternative Dispute Resolution (Workflow) Filing 04/22/2009
Anderson County Return of Service Filing 04/30/2009
Anderson County Filing/Filing Of Filing 04/30/2009
Anderson County Answer/Answer & Counterclaim Filing 05/27/2009
Cunningham, Michael Service/Certificate Of Service Filing 05/27/2009
Cunningham, Michael Plaintiff's Reply to Def's. Counterclaim Filing 06/03/2009
Anderson County Service/Certificate Of Service Filing 06/03/2009
Cunningham, Michael Plaintiff's Amended Reply to Def's. Counterclaim Filing 06/10/2009
Anderson County Service/Certificate Of Service Filing 06/10/2009
Cunningham, Michael Stipulation Of Dismissal WITH PREJUDICE AS TO "FIRST COUNT- Filing 06/29/2009
Anderson County Service/Certificate Of Service by Mail Filing 06/29/2009
Cunningham, Michael CP Master Jury Docket Event 01/01/2010
The 6/29/09 filing is what has everyone confused. AIM did not publish the "news release".
But y'all keep hoping. MC cooperating can only be good for the county. I can understand his hesitation to cooperate with a conspiracy claim over his head.
DWade writes:
So, you can read a docket of filings that have occurred with the court. Let's everyone give him a big round of applause...that's really valuable information.
Anderson County a) Terminated MC, b) Refused to honor his employment agreement and c)filed a counterclaim against him in his suit, asking for fees, etc., and essentially accusing him of a frivilous suit, which they have now agreed to drop. I remind you, Anderson County approached him about agreeing to drop the counterclaim, in exchange for MC's cooperation.
So, when someone does not act in good faith towards you, what is your incentive to act in good faith towards them? None.
Anderson County has figured out, to dot the I's and cross the T's on any wrongdoing that might have occurred, they need MC's help, otherwise they would not have offered this up to him..be assured of that. Even with that, showing JP and others might have taken advantage of the "system" may not yield any laws were broken (if they took advantage of the system).....it most likely will serve to point out hard lessens were learned, hopefully to not be repeated.
Most likely this is too near and dear to yours and Bubba's hearts, and you're not looking at the facts, objectively......or, you're two num nuts that just likes to spout out information......I don't know.
MikeEllis writes:
There have been two commentators here talking about the PICase Web site.
That is the official site tracking court documents and it lists Michael Cunningham's name next to the dismissal documents.
This does not mean that Cunningham is the one whose case was dismissed, lawyers on both sides say just the county's end was dismissed.
The clerk of court office told me that was just a clerical mistake, one which is being fixed right now.
It should read Anderson County next to the stipulation of dismissal and it will shortly, if it doesn't already, I have been assured.
Thanks to ISOT and another commentator on an earlier article for alerting me to the mistake on the clerk's Web site and helping to get it fixed for the record.
This does not change any of our reporting.
Mike Ellis
reporter
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.