3d DCA Watch -- Continuously Opining On Matters Not Before Us Since 1957!

Hear ye Hear ye, the 3d DCA is festooned this day with officially sanctioned holiday cheer, dispensing PCAs to all the good little boy and girl litigants, and indubitably (real word used last week by Judge Shepherd!) sharing the peaceful joys of the season.

It's true the holiday party got a little out of hand, what with the eggnog-spiked swilled coffee, the well-placed mistletoe hanging from Judge [ed. -- name deleted] or possibly his chambers, the "guess what's under my robe" game that quickly went awry, and of course the traditional gathering 'round the bunker fire to hear a spirited reading of the most gruesome cautionary Heinrich Hoffman fairy tales -- in their original German.

Still, that's what I call an old-fashioned 3d DCA Christmas!

Onward....

Crombie v. Williams:

This is an appeal of a denial of a petition for a mother to relocate to Jacksonville with her minor child.  In the process of reversing Chief Judge Brown below, the 3d also remanded with instructions to consider the mother's pending petition for child support.

This leads Judge Shepherd, in a concurrence, to take issue:

I am not unmindful of the several good reasons why Crombie wishes to move to Jacksonville. I write only to remark that we tread on dangerous ground when we opine on matters not before us, and express my belief it is as likely as not in this case that Crombie has been, at least to some extent, the author of her own undoing.

Hey, I was with Judge S through the "we tread on dangerous grounds when we opine on matters not before us" but correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the rest of the sentence -- "my belief it is as likely as not in this case that Crombie has been, at least to some extent, the author of her own undoing" -- opining on matters not before us?

Or maybe it's the eggnog.

Bay Park v. Triple M. Roofing:

The 3d sends the appellee a holiday card:

Finally, because the motion filed below represents the quintessential example of a frivolous motion rendering the time spent in the prosecution of this appeal equally wasteful, we grant appellant’s motion for costs pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(a). As to attorney’s fees pursuant to rule 9.400(b), the Florida Supreme Court has stated that the language of rule 9.400(b) requires that “a party seeking attorney’s fees in an appellate court must provide substance and specify the particular contractual, statutory, or other substantive basis for an award of fees on appeal. It is simply insufficient for parties to only refer to rule 9.400 or to rely on another court's order in support of a motion for attorney's fees for services rendered in an appellate court.” United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Phillips, 775 So. 2d 921, 922 (Fla. 2000). Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees filed prior to the reply brief. At the same time, the Court on its own motion orders the appellees, Triple M. Roofing and IRT-Arcon, Inc., shall show cause within ten (10) days as to why this Court should not impose sanctions, including attorney’s fees, against the appellees and their counsel pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2010), and Rule 9.410 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Oh, also:  Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!!

Judges Still Mastering New "Email" Technology.

I was in a pretty surly mood when I came in this morning, what with the continued news of layoffs and terminations -- just this week we had Foley & Lardner, SSD, and the continued reports of drips and drabs at Akerman.

But like they say about the weather in New England, if you don't like it just wait a while:

Faber, elected in 2006, said in his memo that the old system, which would have ignored Arzola’s years on the county bench, was “demeaning” to Arzola. “As a fellow county court judge, it is demeaning to me,” he said.

Circuit Judge Reemberto Diaz fired off a terse response to Faber’s e-mail.

“Mr. Faber: In the past few weeks, I have received three (3) unsolicited e-mails from you. Let me respond in the order they were received:

1. NO. I don’t know an interior decorator to recommend to you;

2. NO. I don’t want to buy comedy tickets from you;

3. NO. I’m not interested in your misguided opinion about the chief judge’s decision.

This is not Craig’s list nor a blog. Have a good day.”

Why was I not copied on this email?

As a matter of fact, I happen to know several fine interior decorators; I am always up for good live stand-up (who was it, btw?); and I would indeed be very interested in Judge Farber's (or "Mr. Farber," I guess) "misguided opinion" on the Chief Judge's decision, interior decorators, comedy tickets or anything else.

And, for the record, this is in fact a blog.

To sum it up, Susannah A. Nesmith's story today is a must-read, filled with small charms at nearly every turn.

For example, there's this from Judge Cuerto, who is upset that he got passed over for criminal court by Judge Arzola:

“I do not want to bring any negative publicity to our branch of government, which is still held in high regard in the community,” he wrote in the e-mail to all judges in the county.

Ok, I think that's a fair statement, but will all these emails help?

At least someone has a sense of humor -- Judge Pineiro, in a nod to Three Stooges fans everywhere, called for the inevitable:

“Alright, I think it is definitely time to resolve this discussion and bring it to a dignified conclusion — one which will make us proud,” he wrote. “I suggest pies (preferably apple) at 10 paces.”

See, this Judge has both an appreciation of classic comedy and an understanding of the limits of email privacy.

Whichever way the pie crumbles, thanks for turning around my morning!

Judge Joel Brown Elected New Chief Judge.

We're not too sure this is a job to envy given the dire economic circumstances, but congrats are in order to new Chief Judge Joel Brown.

Good luck Judge -- you're gonna need it.