Perfect For A Friday: Magistrate Judge Brown Offers "Diatribe" on "Speedbumps"!

Hey, I don't write this stuff.

But I'm sure glad to be able to share it, so let's dig into a nice Friday lovenote from Magistrate Judge Brown on that elusive "meet and confer" rule we always seem to be talking about:

First, the Court will address compliance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). It was not properly complied with in this situation. Indicative of how this case is being litigated is the statement by plaintiff that there is no “authority for the proposition Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) requires counsel to discuss every detail of an anticipated request to the Court with the opposing party.” (Reply p. 5).  What part of “good faith” is counsel missing? It’s not “an anticipated request to the Court” that this rule is about, it’s about a discovery disagreement between the parties that, in most cases, should be worked out/compromised between professional parties without the need for the Court to act as referee. It is not “anticipated” until after the parties are unable, using the aforementioned good faith,to compromise. The rule does not exist as some speed bump counsel must travel to run to the Court - it exists because problems should be worked out wherever and whenever possible before coming to the Court. This rule exists so the parties will discuss exactly and entirely what their problems are to try to resolve them before running to the Court . . . not to go through some charade so as to cross the “speed bump” and run to litigate some more. While this diatribe is directed to plaintiff’s counsel, given the history of this case, it is not one-sided. The Court must agree that the parties can’t agree on who is signing this order, much less anything else. Were it not for that fact, this motion would be denied without further comment.

 'Nuff said!

BTW, did the Judge say "speed bumps" or "my humps"?

Oh well it's Friday:

3d DCA Watch -- Ding Dong Ding Dong

Hi kids it's almost New Year's and the Resplendently Robed Ones have brought out the noisemakers, the legal-in-three-States fireworks, and the heavily swilled, heavily spiked coffee as we launch into this very special holiday edition of 3d DCA Watch:

Morrissette v. NCL:

This case involves someone who may or may not be related to Alanis Morissette.

Nothing else about this opinion is notable.

Valdes v. Optimist Club:

We're finally seeing some pull-back in the expansion of the preemption doctrine during the Bush Years. This well-reasoned opinion by Judge Ramirez seeks to align Florida law with the Supreme Court's recent Wyeth decision.

(Added one more New Year's resolution -- stay away from Tylenol Cold.)

Laquer v. Convergency Plaza:

Hey, once you waive arbitration, you waive it forever.

Industrial Affiliates v. Fish:

"For reasons unknown" Judge Schwartz seems a little ticked at Circuit Court Appellate Division Judges Scott Bernstein, Mindy Glazer, and Maria Espinoza Dennis:

For reasons unknown, the circuit court, appellate division, per curiam denied review of a final order of the Miami-Dade County Equal Opportunity Board awarding damages to the employee, Ms. Fish, in an alleged employment discrimination case.

I know, I hate it when appellate courts just enter per curiams, I mean what kind of lazy slackers do that on a regular basis.....oh, never mind.

Judge Schwartz concludes:

The decision under review therefore represents a clear departure from the essential requirements of the law resulting in a miscarriage of justice and is therefore quashed.

He added, "auld lang syne and Happy New Year!"