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.