Chris Carver Represents Maximum Human Performance!

 
Well, he represented Maximum Human Performance.

Now Scott Cosgrove does.

(I've always wanted to write that headline.)

Check Out Russell Adler's New Website!

Are you interested that Scott Rothstein and Russ Adler have their Manhattan condos up for sale?

Ok, then what about Adler's spiffy new website:

Russell S. Adler is a civil trial lawyer with a passion for the Court Room. This is where justice is dispensed for his clients. This is where all cases end up if they don't settle. Russell is passionate about his clients and their cases. He is dedicated to your cause. Russell focuses on personal injury, wrongful death, car accident, motorcycle accident, sexual abuse, medical malpractice, class action, qui tam whitsleblower, elderly abuse and product defect cases. He also handles commercial litigation and employment law matters. Visit our Case Types area for more information and video clips. We do a better job on your case using cutting edge technology. View your paperless case files online, and use our collaboration tools to stay informed.

Those are some mighty bad-arse photos Russ has scattered along his site.

Some even seem Carveresqe --I like them!

PACER Surfing Thursday -- Sorry About That, Chief!

Dear Judge Graham and Magistrate Judge Torres:

It is with some regret that I must write you both in relation to the docket in Appel v. Liberty American Insurance Company.

Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but there appears to be some kind of misunderstanding.

There are some very capable counsel in this case, I just want to reiterate that point.

I also attempted to understand what the case is about, and carefully reviewed Judge Graham's Order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

All I know is there are a lot of acronyms in the case, as evidenced by this language on page 16 of the Order:

With respect to reporting, Mr. Leftwich, the former VP of Claims for LAIS, testified that he reported to Dan Eldridge, President of LAIG, LAIS, LASIC and LAIC, and peripherally to Mr. Benake, the VP of Claims for PCHC.

Aha -- the old LAIG, LAIS, LASIC, LAIC, PCHC trick!

The defendants then took an interlocutory appeal of the order denying dismissal(!), and moved to stay the case and for a protective order to stay discovery while the appeal is pending.

"Fastest Mag in the SD FL" Judge Torres denied the motion for protective order without waiting for a response from the plaintiffs:

Upon review of the motion, no response is necessary for the disposition of the motion. Defendants seek a protective order from having to respond to any discovery requests while their motion to stay is pending with the District Court related to an interlocutory appeal of the Court's denial of a motion to dismiss. Without taking any position on the pending motion to stay that is currently briefed and before the District Judge, this Court's review of this motion for protective order shows that no good cause exists under Rule 26 to preclude Plaintiffs from pursuing discovery they would be entitled to in accordance with the District Judge's Order denying the motion to dismiss. Defendants' compliance with that discovery would not undermine their appeal, would not cause irreparable harm, and would not cause such injury that a protective order would be necessary. Thus, for discovery purposes, the relief requested in this motion is unwarranted. The denial of this motion, of course, does not resolve the pending motion to stay the litigation pending appeal, which if granted would then indeed allow Defendants to refrain from responding to discovery while such a stay were in place. For now, Defendants are ordered to comply with all pending obligations under Rule 26.

In other words -- missed it by that much!

Pay Cuts At Akerman?

Heard something about 10 percent along the line.

Thanks to the tipsters, I appreciate it!

Carver!

A CSC junkie spotted the big man hunting down food along SE 1st Street yesterday near that weird little Spanish-language bookstore.

Get off the dope, people!

PACER Surfing With SFL!

You guys ever PACER surf?

You know, go onto PACER and plug in some attorney's name or law firm or some defendant to see what they're up to here in the Southern District?

No, me neither.

But just for kicks I plugged in two of my favorite South Florida attorneys, Chris Carver and Hilarie Bass.

Chris is involved in a mess of a maritime case before Judge Moreno and the fastest Mag in the West, Judge Torres, In Re: MS "Madeleine" Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Reederei Alnwick Harmstorf & Co. GmbH & Co. KG and Bangor Castle Shipping Company Limited.

It's pretty exciting stuff, with Fowler White, Shutts & Bowen, and a bunch of local maritime lawyer-types involved.

I would summarize the litigation, but the last few times I tried I fell asleep at the keyboard and had to be revived by a double-cafecito and repeat viewings of "10."

You guys are on your own on that one.

Hilarie has an interesting piece of litigation involving the owner of Mykonos Restaurant who is suing the Baltimore City Paper for defamation. My friend Miguel de la O's partner Joel Magolnick is representing the plaintiff.

Ok Joel, you're my friend too.

Reading the complaint and also the pending motion to dismiss for lack of venue that Hilarie filed, it seems that the paper allegedly got the owner of the restaurant confused with a Baltimore federal fugitive that also happens to have the same name as Joel's client. After getting a letter, the City Paper allegedly ran an apology and retraction:

On September 24, 2008, City Paper posted an online retraction, stating that it “regrets the confusion and apologizes to [Plaintiff] for any troubles they've had as a result of the stories.” (Compl., Exh. C.) On October 8, 2008, City Paper re-ran the August 27, 2008 article, prominently prefaced with a “Correction,” clarifying that there is no connection between Plaintiff and “Crazy John” Kafouros.

Joel's complaint, of course, lists a number of other problems and alleged errors with the story.

Plaintiff filed in state court, defendants removed, and they are moving to dismiss or transfer based on improper venue.

The interesting issue is whether online dissemination of a story can subject you to long-arm jurisdiction somewhere else where the article is read. Hilarie's analysis focuses on Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F. 3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002), where the court established an "effects" test to determine where the "primary effects of the defamatory statements" were felt.

It looks like GT associate D. Porpoise Evans wrote the brief and did a fine job.

Joel just got an enlargement from Judge Gold so his response brief has not yet been filed.

Meanwhile, all I can say is the plaintiff runs a great restaurant and I hope there is some in-kind edible payment involved for Joel's legal efforts.

What's For Dessert?

So let's get the important stuff out of the way -- an Akerman birdie reported that none other than the big man himself was spotted heading into state court on Flagler yesterday shortly before lunchtime.

Oh man, God help the poor sap he had for lunch.

What else? Did anyone else find this story a little odd:

Joel Jacobi, the Bal Harbour council member who tried to fight off allegations that he did not live in the village when he ran for reelection two years ago, resigned Monday.

The resignation came five days after the start of a civil trial challenging his election victory in 2007.

In his letter to the village clerk, Jacobi cited ''personal issues'' for his sudden resignation.

''I finally came to the difficult decision that I could no longer fight this matter,'' said Jacobi, who was a Village Council member for seven years. ``It has exhausted me both financially and emotionally.''

His last day in office will be April 1. The Village Council plans to appoint a replacement to serve the rest of Jacobi's term, which ends in 2011.

Jacobi, a family and personal-injury attorney, declined to comment.

His attorney, Joe Geller, said the resignation did not mean his client conceded he was ineligible to hold office.

The prospect of a lengthy and expensive trial and possible appeals was daunting, Geller said.

''You are talking about a job that pays $92 a month,'' said Geller, who would not reveal how much Jacobi has spent on legal fees. ``How much can you expect from the guy to sacrifice for a $92-a-month job?''

Jacobi's former opponent, Lynne Bloch-Mullen, filed the civil lawsuit questioning whether Jacobi was living in the village when he defeated her in April 2007 with almost 70 percent of the vote.

The civil trial began Wednesday in Miami-Dade Circuit Court.

Now Joel Jacobi is an attorney, and of course so is Joe Geller. They know roughly what the costs are going in, right? Shouldn't they have agreed on a sensible plan to reach the finish line on this matter?

Or did they already have a feel for the outcome?

It's Carver Time!

You are hungry, and must be fed.

3d DCA Watch -- Special Chris Carver Commemorative Edition

This is turning out to be one hail of a week. I don't know what I did to deserve all this, but I have had semi-legitimate reasons to publish some of my favorite photos, and today brings us yet another one.

So without any further precatory blather, let's get right into it, yes kiddies join us as we peer down south at those mystical coffee-swilling laborers by the cee-ment road, those robed wranglers who bring us so much wit, wisdom, and the occasional inscrutable PCA, yes it's this week's edition of 3d DCA Watch:

Well, what do you know. I went and early voted today (which thanks to our dopey state legislators I had to do in some kind of glorified phone booth out in the boonies), but still I voted.

And I must admit it felt good. No, it felt great. It made me really feel proud as an American to get out there and participate in an historic election, an election that can really help shape the future course of this great but troubled nation.

So, if you must know, I will tell you who I voted for. Yes yes and yes, I voted for Judges Lagoa and Salter. I really only skimmed the rest of the ballot.

What, did I miss something?

Anyway, all you Chris Carver diehards I give you your red meat --

Rolls-Royce v. Royal Caribbean:

This is an amazingly insightful opinion that I urge you all to carefully read and reflect upon. In fact, you big-firmers should spend at least 7.2 hours of professional development poring over the fine points of this opinion. Did I mention it features Chris Carver?

In conclusion, Bo Derek, if you are listening, I beg of you to do something newsworthy by Friday, and if possible please try to involve a South Florida lawyer. Thank you.

Your friend,

SFL