3d DCA Watch -- A "Very Substantial," "Totally Precluded" Edition

Well, frankly I'm surprised that the 3d DCA would even consider issuing rulings so soon after the death of Fred Travalena, I mean Michael Jackson.

Judgment during times of national calamity can be clouded by grief, and even coffee-swilling, dispassionate jurists need time to digest such an enormity before returning to the important business of dispensing PCAs like candy corns on Halloween.

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the 3d took the entire summer off to mourn Anna Nicole Smith's untimely demise -- oh hail, who can remember so many dead celebrities ago?

But soldier on they must, and surveillance towers in the deep North Atlantic have picked up faint radio signals emanating from the concrete bunker of justice, a sure sign that the resplendently robed ones have either cracked the Ultra code or released their latest batch of juridical instant classics:

Sparks v. Allstate Construction:

Shorter Jeff Foxworthy -- if you keep striking African-American jurors on flimsy grounds such as the fact that they are "bus drivers" or "not white people," you may be using your strikes for a racially discriminatory reason.

The transcript is a pretty hilarious read -- but here the 3d gets it:

In this case, using “reason and common sense,” Melbourne, 679 So. 2d at 765, the circumstances surrounding, and explanation for, the strikes seem palpably pretextual. Rodriguez v. State, 753 So. 2d 29, 40 (Fla.
2000).

This is particularly true when all of the peremptory strikes are used against
one distinct racial group, and a single member of that same group is only seated at
a time when that party has exhausted its entire allowance of peremptories.

Can't we all play nice, counsel?

Delant Construction v. Doral Enterprises:

Judge Schwartz, apparently unfazed by the Royal Popped One's tragic end, has stepped into the breach:

In the present case, Doral Enterprises won a money judgment against Delant
for an alleged overpayment based on the theory that it had not paid Coreslab.
Delant appeals and we reverse because it is undisputed that, in the course of
litigation between the two, Delant indeed settled Coreslab’s claim against it for
engineering services and paid Coreslab the entire amount due. That act left Doral
Enterprises totally undamaged by reason of its alleged overpayment in the original settlement and, it follows, no basis whatever to support the judgment now on appeal.

You tell it -- it's not enough to be undamaged, these people were "totally undamaged."

Hallelujah!!

And forget having "no basis" to support the judgment -- these nudnicks have "no basis whatever"!

Amen, sister!!

I especially like footnote one:

The basis of our decision makes it unnecessary to consider the very substantial
alternative argument that the present proceeding by Doral Enterprises against
Delant is totally precluded by an “accord and satisfaction” arising from the original settlement between the two.

Not just precluded, but "totally precluded"; not just substantial but "very substantial."

In conclusion, my sisters and brothers, this opinion is totally awesome.

One more thing -- happy passing of the gavel, Judge Ramirez!!