Opening Day!

Falling on Easter, it reminds me of this:



N.B.: While it's true that a baseball has 108 stitches, there are only 59 beads in a Catholic rosary. The original Catholic Rosary did contain 108 beads, it was "streamlined" down to 59. A rosary contained 10 decades of 10 "Hail Marys" (100 beads) and 8 "Our Fathers" for 8 beads which equals 108.

"The only church that truly feeds the soul, day in and day out, is the church of baseball."

Play Ball!

Getting Ready for My Meet-and-Confer.

Don't you just dread having to talk to opposing counsel sometimes?

Shhh -- Don't Tell Our Legislature But the Florida Supreme Court Just Applied Foreign Law!

Anyone remember that ridiculous anti-Islam Sharia foreign law bill that was introduced last year in the Florida Senate?

Well it's back:

After it failed last year, lawmakers on Thursday revived a bill that would ban Shariah, or Islamic, law and other foreign laws from Florida courts.

Republican Sen. Alan Hays, who sponsored the bill, said his measure was a "preemptive gesture." There are no reported cases in which a Florida court applied foreign law. 

Not so fast!

The Florida Supreme Court earlier today applied dreaded foreign law -- in favor of Don King of all people!

The law in question -- the venerable English doctrine of "statute of frauds":

The statute appears to have been enacted in response to developments in the common law arising out of the advent of the writ of assumpsit, which changed the general rule precluding enforcement of oral promises in the King’s courts. Thereafter, perjury and the subornation of perjury became a widespread and serious problem. Furthermore, because juries at that time decided cases on their own personal knowledge of the facts, rather than on the evidence introduced at trial, a requirement, in specified transactions, of “some memorandum or note . . . in writing, and signed by the party to be charged” placed a limitation on the uncontrolled discretion of the jury. Although the British Parliament repealed most provisions of the statute . . . in 1954[,] the statute nonetheless remains the law virtually everywhere in the United States.

Good lord -- next thing someone will say the Magna Carta somehow informs our jurisprudence.

Posh that!

Now Red Bull Is Trying to Kill You!

I've decided -- in the interests of safety -- to encase myself in a hermetically sealed plastic bubble so as to avoid encountering anything that may be possibly harmful to my health.

But what if I fall in love?

3d DCA Watch -- I Guess You Can't Adopt Your Girlfriend After All.

Hi kids, it's that time of the week again so let's gander at whose goose has been cooked:

Goodman v. Goodman:

Anyone remember WPB polo magnate John Goodman, who adopted his girlfriend allegedly to shield assets in defending against a mega-bucks wrongful death suit?

Turns out the bunker was not too keen on the idea:

The trial court thus erred when it denied the motions for intervention and motions to vacate the Final Judgment of Adult Adoption. Therefore, the case is remanded with instructions to vacate and set aside the Final Judgment of Adult Adoption, and allow the guardian and Carroll to intervene in any subsequent proceedings.

Judge Schwartz, specially concurring, was even less keen on the idea:

Even if the motivation and the means for securing it were not so reprehensible, I believe, as the New York Court of Appeals held in In re Adoption of Robert Paul P., 63 N.Y. 2d 233, 236 (1984), the adoption of a paramour is so contrary to the beneficent purposes of such an action that no such judgment can ever be sustained.

Judge, tell us how you really feel!

Hey, Let's Play Gay Marriage Roulette!

Supreme Court cases come, Supreme Court cases go but few have such a direct and personal effect on me as the ones being heard today and tomorrow and it is all about me, right? It is a little unnerving to know that men like Justices Scalia and Thomas have a say in whether or not I’m in a legal relationship. According to them being gay is ‘like being roommates,’ or beastiality or murder. FYI: it’s none of those things. Imagine one of them taking part in your nuptials. You say you do, your wife/husband says they do, then you look over to Scalia for the final word.

I’m a married gay man but live in Florida and here in Florida we have ye old Amendment 2, a constitutional ban on gay marriage, not unlike California’s Proposition 8. Amendment 2 combines with DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) to render my New England marriage license legally worth about as much as toilet paper. 

This is to protect children. Or the sanctity of marriage. Or something.

On the matter of children, any child is lucky to have one sane, caring adult in their life. Millions do not. If that sane, caring adult is a gay man or woman it is completely irrelevant. That child’s life is already miles ahead of those absent proper guardianship.

Obviously Scalia thinks gay sex is icky. Very icky. I might even say “he doth protest too much.” It’s a known fact that some of homosexuality's most vocal opponents are secretly homosexual themselves. And now I’m going to completely ruin your day with the mental image of justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito all naked and spooning.

I hope you found that image unnerving because I’m unnerved myself. You deserve to be as freaked as I am. There isn’t a simple yes or no answer that will come from these hearings. There are a plethora of possibilities. Fundamental aspects of my life are on the line!

Proposition 8 could be struck down in a wide ruling that would take other gay marriage bans like Florida’s Amendment 2 with it. A more narrow ruling could affect only those states with civil unions, converting those civil unions into full marriages. Another possibility is that the court would deny standing letting the lower court’s findings hold. Or SCOTUS could find that California was not entitled to withdraw a right to same-sex marriage once it had been established by the California Supreme Court. This would strike down Prop 8 but leave other, similar laws alone.

And then there’s DOMA. The court could strike down the law, uphold the law or claim lack of standing leaving the lower court's ruling in place.

Depending on what the court decides it’s possible that I will have marriage rights at the federal level but not the state or at the state level but not the federal. It’s also possible that I will be equal, that we will be equal, the only option that's not a total and complete mess.

Get On the Right Side of History.

Here's hoping the Supremes do the right thing today.

Slippery slope etc.

Oh hail, this one's for you DOM:

Happy Pesach, Plebes!

Hi there!

Slow day at work as we get ready for a traditional Pesach filled with antitrust-controlled matzah, antitrust-controlled sweet kosher wine, and the fascinating, unrivaled marketing success of the Maxwell House Haggadah.

Speaking of (a) relentless Jews, John Pacenti profiles L&T here.

(It's a holiday -- let's keep the comments civil).

First District Reverses Child Support Decree

The First District Court of Appeal ruled today in Garren v. Oliver, a case in which the Appellant challenged the lower court’s judgment of paternity.  The First District found merit in one issue raised, specifically that the child support set did not use the “gross up” method for support calculation despite a schedule of timesharing that warranted it.  The First District Court reversed on this basis, finding that the use of the alternate calculation was mandatory.

Brown and Heller Shocker!

 Wow!

The Intrepid One™ is there:

After 38 years in operation, the law firm informed 23 attorneys and about 50 staffers last week that it would be closing, and Monday was their last day. The lease on two floors at the One Biscayne Tower building, the firm's home since 1975, expires April 1.

Employees will receive no COBRA health insurance but will receive three weeks of severance pay, firm co-founder Lewis Brown said.

So they got two days' notice, three weeks of severance, and no COBRA.

Actually, not even two days:

Attorneys and staff were called last Friday and informed the firm was closing. They were told to pick up their belongings and clean up their files for transfer Monday.

 But no worries, says Brown:

"We are making sure we ensure all our ethical obligations are met."

That's a relief.

You Never Know Who You Might Bump Into!

Good to see he's doing ok.

Just Returned from Motion Calendar!

I plan to rinse thoroughly but in the meantime couldn't help but think of this.

Fourth District Rejects Petition for Writ of Certiorari

The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled today in Carrillo-Jimenez v. Carillo, a case in which the Appellant had sought to strike a social investigation report which he alleged unfairly disclosed confidential communications between the parties’ minor children and their psychotherapist.  The Petition was denied based on the holding of Hughes v. Schatzberg, 872 So.2d 996 (Fla.4th DCA 2004), which held that a parent involved in litigation over the welfare of a child may not assert the psychotherapist patient privilege on behalf of the child.  The Court appeared to pay special attention to the petitioner’s motivation in seeking the writ.

3d DCA Watch -- Relation Back to the Future!

Hi kids, the bunker denizens have spoken thusly:

Kopel v. Kopel:

Hey, how cool is it that the appellant is named Bernie Kopell?

Oh, also the 3d reversed a $5 million jury verdict based on a faulty application of the "relation back" doctrine.

Florida Diversified v. Simon Roofing:

Shocking -- mass confusion over how to apply the offer of judgment statute, here in a situation where appellate attorneys' fees were previously awarded:

In a prior appeal from this same underlying case, FDF filed a motion for appellate attorney’s fees based on the same proposal for settlement now at issue. In the prior appeal, Simon Roofing, the defendant, objected to FDF’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees based on the proposal for settlement, arguing that FDF made the proposal in bad faith. This Court, after considering the arguments and the record, ultimately granted FDF’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees. Simon Roofing then filed a motion for rehearing, raising the same arguments now raised in the instant appeal, and suggesting that they had been overlooked by this Court. Again, this Court rejected Simon’s arguments, and denied Simon Roofing’s motion for rehearing.

Accordingly, FDF’s entitlement to attorney’s fees based on its proposal for settlement became the law of the case.

Jones v. Rizzo:

Practice note -- when asserting "excusable neglect," you should provide some sworn evidence.

Bank of NY v. Reyes:

No such thing as a cause of action for "attempted wrongful foreclosure."

Wells Fargo v. Aristo:

Not good when Judge Salter writes something like this:

Then-counsel for Aristo led the trial judge into error.

The Judge also wistfully "relates back" to a simpler time, when opposing counsel would get drunk together at Sally Russell's and settle cases with some purely hetero grabass and a shot of whiskey lawyers would actually call each other:

At the risk of viewing professional courtesy through rose-colored glasses, we can also recall a day when counsel appearing without opposition for a hearing on an obviously-contested matter—one in which the contending pleadings each sought priority to a six-figure sum of money—would first place a telephone call to opposing counsel to confirm that some personal emergency or postal glitch had not occurred.

Sadly, your honor, those days appear gone for good.

Attention Spencer Aronfeld Haters: This One's For You!

The dude's an easy target, but when's the last time you organized and established a legal support system to help the homeless?

Breaking! Robert Fiore Has a New Case!

After a drunk guy who makes $34 million in the NFL broke a door knob, Mr. Fiore brought the hammer: "They were scared,” said the family’s attorney, Robert Fiore, who filed the lawsuit Monday in Miami-Dade circuit court. “My client was holding on for dear life.” Not just life. Dear life.

The details are here.

The rich NFL player apologized (and I hope bought a new door knob!)

Not so fast.

“We allege that Mr. Bryant made more than a simple, inconsequential mistake,” Fiore said, “and that Mr. Bryant’s conduct has significant legal consequences.”

It can't be that simple to get a guy that big, that drunk. And all that booze was probably not a mistake. So I give Bob that. Restoration Hardware has a significant selection of door knobs but they are not inexpensive. Thus, the damages are not inconsequential. But the defendant took a cab to what he thought was home (been there, done that.) This is going to be a tough trial for Bob.

N.B.: Is it really only Tuesday?

Magistrate Judge Goodman: You Gotta Have (Bad) Faith!

Hi folks!

It's been a while since we last visited with Magistrate Judge Goodman, but I see that he has entered a very scholarly order on a spoliation motion seeking the dismissal of a party's pleadings.

In analyzing the legal standard, Judge Goodman sets the bar pretty high:

Given this circuit’s requirement that an adverse inference flowing from spoliation requires the presence of bad faith, even grossly negligent conduct would not justify that type of jury instruction when it is not accompanied by bad faith. . . . Because this circuit requires a showing of bad faith before sanctioning a party when there is spoliation of evidence,courts in this circuit must refrain from imposing sanctions when no bad faith is shown.

Ok, I agree.

But how could the song-spouting jurist miss an easy George Michael reference?

SFL Friday -- Time to Depose Opposing Counsel!

I'm sure none of my dear readers have done this, but I have heard talk that sometimes lawyers will spring demonstratives on opposing counsel mere seconds before presenting them to the judge or jury.

FIGHT THE URGE YOUNGINS!

Well now there is the natural recourse (at least in the 4th DCA) for such low-class "ham-and-egger" behavior -- depose opposing counsel on the content of those summaries:

During the pretrial stage, two attorneys working for Petitioners created a master summary chart (“MSC”) to be used as a trial exhibit. The MSC consisted of a combination of personal injury protection files generated by Petitioners, and medical and billing charts generated by Respondents. Over Respondents’ objection, MSC was introduced into evidence as a summary based on section 90.956, Florida Statutes (2004). However, the trial was terminated before judgment when a mistrial was declared by the trial court.

Prior to retrial, Respondents filed a motion to take the depositions of Petitioners’ attorneys who created the MSC. After conducting a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, finding that because the attorneys were “interject[ed] into this case by [their] creation of a critical trial exhibit,” Respondents were “permitted to question the accuracy and methodology used for creation of the [MSC].”

But the 4th said okey-dokey:

While it is true that the attempt to depose a party’s attorney during ongoing litigation has been rejected when irrelevant or privileged information was sought from the attorney, attorneys are not per se exempt from the reach of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(a), which allows the taking of the deposition of any person. . . .While we recognize the potential for abuse of the process of deposing the opposing party’s attorney during ongoing litigation, we are confident trial courts in this district will use their powers of supervision over discovery to prevent privileged information from being disclosed. 

"Potential for abuse"? 

I'd say it is a near-virtual certainty.

What say you?

Shocker Involving Former Jax Bar President!

You may have seen this shocking story involving respected Jacksonville attorney Kelly Mathis, former President of the Jacksonville Bar Association.

I mean, can you believe this guy actually (allegedly) did this:

According to a 2004 profile of Mathis in the Daily Record, a business and law publication in Jacksonville, Mathis said he was known for once running a marathon in a suit as a stunt.

What a nudnik -- every bar association has one!

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/14/3285266_p2/officials-fla-lawyer-at-center.html#storylink=cpy

Fourth District Court Reverses Denial of Health Insurance Coverage

In the case of Gaudette v. Gaudette, the lower court determined that it was unable to award the Appellant payment of her health insurance from the Appellee as “there was no evidence presented as to the cost of the Wife’s health insurance and if that cost would be affordable to the Husband with his limited income.  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed yesterday on the basis that the Appellee’s own financial affidavit listed the cost of Appellant’s health insurance.  Finding this sufficient record evidence, on remand the Fourth District instructed the lower court to reconsider its findings on this issue.

3d DCA Watch -- Springtime for Bunker!

It's Springtime in the bunker and reversals are flowering everywhere!

Let's deeply inhale:

Deutsche Bank v. Santiago:

Judge Leesfield improperly directed a verdict for borrowers in a foreclosure action before the bank rested its case:

In these facts, the trial court erred when it ordered an involuntary dismissal of the foreclosure action before the bank had rested its case. The governing rule of civil procedure provides for an involuntary dismissal for lack of evidence only “[a]fter a party seeking affirmative relief in an action tried by the court without a jury has completed the presentation of evidence.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b) (2012).  Simply put, “it is error to direct a verdict before a plaintiff has completed presentation of his evidence.”

Sure sure that's technically true, but I'm slightly sympathetic to the judge here.

Would it be so wrong if a judge, upon hearing bullcrap testimony from a party just said hold on, this is nonsense, and dismissed the whole thing sua sponte?

Isn't that how they used to do things around here?

Steiner Transocean v. Efremova:

Judge Schumacher improperly limited himself on a motion to dismiss to the four corners of the complaint.

Wait -- what?

As a general rule, when considering a motion to dismiss, a trial court is limited to the allegations within the four corners of the complaint and any attachments. However, there are several exceptions to this general rule. For example, a court is permitted to consider evidence outside the four corners of the complaint where the motion to dismiss challenges subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction, or where the motion to dismiss is based upon forum non conveniens or improper venue. A motion to dismiss based on a contractual forum selection clause is similar, in many respects, to a motion to dismiss for improper venue. We can discern no reason for treating them differently for purposes of applying the exception to the “four corners” rule.

Slippery, meet my old friend Slope.

Judge McAliley Grants Lewis Tein's Motion to Compel.

She found that the Tribe did not carry its burden of establishing the "deliberative process privilege":

One central issue was the Plaintiffs assertion of the deliberative process privilege, as an objection to producing portions of minutes, recordings or other documentation of the meetings of the Plaintiff's Business Council and General Council. Both Defendants Lehtinen and Lewis Tein had requested these records in a number of their document requests. Before Plaintiff filed its response to the motions to compel, I reminded Plaintiff of its obligation to fully meet its burden to establish its claims of privilege, and advised that l expected it to do so in its response to the motions to compel.(s'ce DE 151, 1541.

Plaintiff failed to carry this burden. Instead, Plaintiff made conclusory assertions that some of the communications at these Council meetings as protected by this privilege, without identifying the particular communications or providing any evidence to support its claim . In particular, Plaintiff did not provide any declarations from persons with knowledge who might have been able to establish the various elements of the deliberative process privilege - an essential starting point to meeting its burden of proof.l  Accordingly, for the reasons set forth more fully at the discovery conference, I found that Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proving its claims of privilege and I thus overruled these objections.

She also granted the law firm's demand for production of the Tribe's IRS Forms 1096, with all 1099s that relate to the lawyers or firm.

I Know What You (Don't) Want!

 
How cool is it that ESPN is using this great Busta Rhymes/Mariah Carey track to promo professional bowling?

Here's the original video:

In other news, the Intrepid One™ dissects the recent BigLaw exodus and explains the reasoning:

What is behind the recent Big Law exodus?

Legal experts say more attorneys are rejecting a career in Big Law for life as a solo or small-firm attorney. Their reasons include frustration with their inability to make partner, a desire for flexibility with fees and clients, a yen for more family time and an entrepreneurial spirit.

"The reality is there are fewer opportunities for associates to make partner today than there were 10 years ago, and that's because of the change in the marketplace in the new normal," said Bill Brennan, a law firm consultant with Philadelphia-based Brennan Strategy. "They may be reading the tea leaves and deciding they may as well go off on their own. Only 60 to 70 percent of associates are going to make partner these days."

The good news, according to Brennan, is that nearly all of those breaking away from big firms find success and happiness running their own firms.

"There's a period of intense anxiety but it's extremely rewarding," he said. "They say. 'I wish I did it sooner.' They love it."

"Success....happiness...extremely rewarding...loving your job."

Who knew?

Eugene Stearns, Bridge Builder.

Is there anything this guy can't do:

Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Gimenez appeared at the Key Biscayne Village Council meeting on Thursday to defend his plans for a $31 million repair to the Bear Cut Bridge connecting the island village with Virginia Key.

The westbound side of the bridge has been closed since early January, when inspectors found severe rust on the bridge’s steel beams and girders. Westbound traffic is now sharing the eastbound side of the bridge.

Gimenez and the county commission have approved emergency repairs, which are expected to take almost a year. The repairs will be paid for from Rickenbacker Causeway tolls.

But Eugene Stearns, an attorney and longtime Key Biscayne resident, recently proposed temporary repairs, which he says could be completed in a matter of weeks, and “buy time for a more complete and permanent solution” in the form of a new bridge. The new bridge would separate local traffic from travelers crossing the bridge, according to a written proposal Stearns has circulated to county officials and village leaders.

“The County is, instead, embarking on a poorly-conceived course of action, which will waste millions of dollars, preserve existing design deficiencies, and fail to provide adequate access to some of the most important and popular public lands and facilities in all of South Florida,” Stearns wrote.

At Thursday’s meeting, village residents spoke in support of Stearns’ plan.

Hmm, why is it that I somehow have more faith in Gene's plan than that of Miami-Dade County?

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/08/3274851/key-biscayne-residents-dont-like.html#storylink=cpy

Au Contraire

Shame on me. With the whole South Bend thing, I thought The Chief might not follow up regarding Maria Elena's "transgressions." But he is The Chief for a reason.

DOM broke the story and links Judge Moreno's order.

What I like most about the order is the "cc" list, which failed to include only:

-Santa Claus
-The Jedi Council
-Dean Wormer
-The Lone Ranger
-All others charged with enforcing Truth and Justice.

The order upholds the integrity of the Federal Bar. Methinks someone is in deep trouble.

Where is the Miami Herald on this story? This is the second significant newsworthy development it ignores.

N.B. Was that Judge Barzee Flores holding the flotation device at the Venetian Pool, on SFL's prior post?

"In Pari Delicto" -- South Florida Style!

It's a classic South Florida story -- the two guys who installed your fancy hurricane shutters (trust me, you overpaid!) both allegedly failed to properly report their income to the IRS, plus one of them may be an undocumented alien not authorized to work in the United States -- oh, he also possibly used a fake Social Security number to get the job.

In other words -- not much different than most of the guys working around town.

Is that a sufficient reason for their employer to refuse to pay overtime?

No, says the 11th Circuit:

Appellants argue that Milan’s recovery should be barred because he would not have been hired absent his use of a false Social Security number. They further argue that both Feliciano’s and Milan’s recoveries should be barred because their tax violations are “connected with the matter in litigation.” However, both of these arguments misstate the test to be applied under Bateman Eichler. Not just any causal relationship or topical connection will do. “The plaintiff must be an active, voluntary participant in the unlawful activity that is the subject of the suit.” Id. at 636 (emphasis added). Appellants cannot satisfy that test because Feliciano and Milan did not participate in Appellants’ decision whether to pay them overtime wages in accordance with the FLSA. Therefore, the district court was correct to deny Appellants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law based on the in pari delicto doctrine.

In other words, the fact you employed a possible tax cheat does not relieve you of your obligation to comply with FLSA -- good to know!

RIP ELR.

We've written before about the slow painful demise of the once-mighty economic loss rule, the late 80's legal equivalent of flatbread or, to bring this into 2013, "greek yogurt."

(For insight into why -- all of a sudden -- everyone must constantly be asked whether they would like some quinoa and coconut water with every meal, click here.)

So it's no surprise that, like most things from the 80s, the Florida Supreme Court has decided that it's best to just forget that whole thing ever happened:

Having reviewed the origin and original purpose of the economic loss rule, and what has been described as the unprincipled extension of the rule, we now take this final step and hold that the economic loss rule applies only in the products liability context. We thus recede from our prior rulings to the extent that they have applied the economic loss rule to cases other than products liability. The Court will depart from precedent as it does here “when such departure is ‘necessary to vindicate other principles of law or to remedy continued injustice.’ ” Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121, 1131 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614, 618 (Fla. 1992)). Stare decisis will also yield when an established rule has proven unacceptable or unworkable in practice. See Westgate Miami Beach, Ltd. v. Newport Operating Corp., 55 So. 3d 576, 574 (Fla. 2010). Our experience with the economic loss rule over time, which led to the creation of the exceptions to the rule, now demonstrates that expansion of the rule beyond its origins was unwise and unworkable in practice. Thus, today we return the economic loss rule to its origin in products liability.

Hooray!

(Next I hope the Supremes address the unwise and unworkable expansion of flatbread well beyond its historic origins...)

BTW Justices Canady and Polston in dissent really get it wrong, as Justice Pariente politely points out.

Or am I totally wrong on this?

I think the dissenting Justices are overdramatizing this ruling but hey, if they truly believe the tort floodgates have been completely opened, there is ample language for plaintiffs to cite in opposition to the inevitable motions to dismiss when you try to tack on a tort to every run of the mill contract case.

Lawyers' Hippocratic Oath?

Good ole' primum non nocere.

I think Judge Marra is suggesting it's not just for doctors:

As stated throughout this litigation, Plaintiffs have made review of this matter particularly difficult because of the summarized or co-mingled manner in which they present their arguments and their extensive use of supra and infra for cites. On more than one occasion, this has pointed to places in the record where there is mere argument without citation, or to cites that do not stand for the proposition asserted.

In a footnote he gets more specific:

Plaintiffs’ manner of presenting their case impedes decision making by forcing the Court to aimlessly search the record for relevant evidence, or the lack of evidence, to support or refute a claim.

Ok, but otherwise how'm I doing?

3d DCA Watch -- Love Hurts Edition.

Hi kids, only two civil cases of any note in this week's 3d DCA Watch, so let's get right to it:

Great Lakes Reinsurance v. JHB:

The tragic events of the Joe Cool charter fishing boat wend their way through the courts, this time involving whether the insurance company properly adjusted the claim.

Schecter v. Schecter:

Exactly what kind of pre-nup is this:

In July 2002, after an eighteen year romantic relationship, the parties executed a prenuptial agreement in which the now former husband, Leroy Schecter, (then with a disclosed net worth approaching $160 million) and the now former wife, Shoshana Candiotti, (then with a worth of almost $1 million) agreed that in the event their contemplated marriage ended in a divorce, Shoshana would receive only $260,000 from Mr. Schecter.

Ahh, the things we do for love!

We Have All Been Here Before?

Wow, let's see -- Dow hits record high, Chavez is out in Venezuela -- is it the 90s all over again?

In other news, for those of you who remember this case involving a teenage girl on a Carnival cruise and an alleged invasive strip search, Judge Rosenbaum has denied Carnival's motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff's punitive damages claim:

As discussed above, there are material disputes in this case as to whether Defendant’s employees conducted a strip search, including a cavity search, of a seventeen-year-old passenger and whether Defendant’s policies permit such a search. If Defendant’s employees performed such a search, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant’s policies permitting the strip search of a minor, if supported by the facts at trial, do not rise to the type of “gross and flagrant” conduct that would support the award of punitive damages.

Hey, so there's that.

But at least they take good care of their passengers when a ship breaks down unexpectedly!

Plaintiff is represented by Kimberly Lambert at Levin Papantonio, and Carnival by Curtis J. Mase.

BREAKING!

Extra, Extra! Read all about it here!

Israel can now read Playboy "for the articles" as a Hebrew language edition came to the holy land Tuesday!

Its about time. There are a lot of talented writers going unnoticed.

N.B. Just in time to pass the time while the smoke rises.

Sorry, Hospitals Aren't Safe Either!

First they came for the bounce houses,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a bounce house enthusiast.
Then they came for the school buses,
and I didn't speak out because I don't ride one anymore.
Then they came for the sushi chefs,
and I got really pissed off because I love sushi.

Hey, it's gotta end somewhere.

SFL Friday -- (The Angels Wanna Wear My) Red Shoes!

Bit of a slow day, news-wise, here is what's on my mind today:

1.  Just like a Justin Bieber concert, the Palm Beach Bench & Bar Conference is SOLD OUT:

BENCH BAR CONFERENCE IS SOLD OUT AND WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCOMMODATE ANY WALK-INS

Sorry judges, you'll just have to gate-crash.

2.  The DBR has handed out their firm awards in various categories, congrats to the winners!

3.   Gary Farmer has filed suit against Citizens Property Insurance, let's hope the litigation concludes sometime before the last citrus canker case goes to trial.

4.   Elvis Costello was right!  (sort of).