How Many Pages Should Your Notice of Supplemental Authority Be?

 Maybe I'm one of those old fart lawyers Brian Tannebaum is always writing about, but I was taught that a notice of supplemental authority should be a one-page document listing the new case, with at most one line or two explaining its relevance.

It shouldn't be an opportunity to engage in another set of briefing that renders the federal rules superfluous.

But we all know lawyers who can't resist using the new case to reargue points already made in the briefs, and who go way overboard -- causing you a moral dilemma:  should you respond in kind?  Move to strike?  Turn the other cheek and ignore the sharp practice?  Hope the judge does something sua sponte?

Case in point:

This supplemental authority is fairly restrained, though you could argue it goes a paragraph too far.

But like the old Cold War doctrine of MAD, an overwhelming and devastating response was inevitable.

And here it is -- three full pages of responsive argument.

Not willing to leave well enough alone, here is the "reply" in support of the notice of supplemental authority -- four(!) more pages of pure argument.

Aren't there page limits in briefs for a reason?

3d DCA Watch -- Engle Progeny Edition!

When does a "bad cough" trigger the statute of limitations in a post-Engle Florida tobacco case?

Never, says the 3d:

In the direct appeal, Ms. Frazier relies upon a carefully-protected record on the statute of limitations evidence and on the jury instruction and verdict forms. Regarding the evidence, and in particular the speculative, clear-in-hindsight-only testimony of Dr. Schroeder, Ms. Frazier sought and obtained an appropriate order in limine, and she objected as well. Dr. Schroeder could not and did not render competent testimony about what Ms. Frazier knew or might reasonably have known regarding the “manifestations” of her Engle-eligible COPD/emphysema and the causal relationship of those manifestations to the cigarettes produced by the appellees. He violated the order in limine as his testimony ventured into what was not “manifest” in 1986 and 1987, whether to Ms. Frazier or her treating physician. The manifestations of her COPD/emphysema did not begin, on this record, until 1991, a date within the statutory limitations period.

Great opinion by Judge Salter!

Clark v. Bluewater Key:

Judge Shepherd dissents "en haec verba"  -- hmm, not familiar with that term -- does he mean In-A-Gadda-Da-Vidda?

(Warning on the video -- you will never get those 17 minutes back!).

AJH Property v. SunTrust:

Big win for Jared Beck in reversing a Judge Bagley summary judgment! 

In other news, CABA withdraws its sponsorship of Lawyer Appreciation Night at Marlins stadium.

Good and I agree -- it's difficult to appreciate most lawyers for even a minute, let alone a whole night. 

Six Reasons I Will Not Be Blogging This Morning.

Hi kids, here they are:

1. I just had new speakers installed at my office and I plan to blare Quadrophenia at excessive volumes so the new associates stay way the hail out of my way (note to sweet kitchen lady -- you can still bring in the cafecito at 10:30).

2. It's National Constitution Day so I will be quietly reading the entire moldy oldie (while of course listening to Quadrophenia at excessive volumes).

3. I need time to compose an awesomely concise, 140-character or less Twitter message to my pals Hector Chichoni and Jared Beck, informing them that Twitter is an interim, transitional technology that will be about as relevant in 10 years as AOL Message Boards are today.

4. I'm still processing the arse-kicking that Brian Tannebaum's Criminal Offense delivered to the Well-Hung Jury.

5. I have finally found an instance where there can be no doubt that Iqbal has been properly applied.

BTW, the "lawyer" representing the plaintiff in the above case called the federal judge -- a George W. Bush appointee -- a "puppet" of Obama "just like in the Soviet Union" but did walk it back some by helpfully suggesting that "not every judge is as corrupt as Judge Land."

(Thank goodness she didn't post these comments on a blog!)

6. What else -- I'm going windsurfing.

Spiritus Mundi.

So let's see -- computer monsters attack your awful "Twitter," that wise Latina was confirmed, and Judge Gold will be holding a telephonic hearing this morning in the UBS case.

Wait a minute, I have one more:

Should securities laws govern the sale of condo-hotel units?

Jared Beck thinks so:

"These were not simple real-estate purchases," said Jared Beck, an attorney in Miami who is working on dozens of suits against condo-hotel developers. "A hotel is a profit-making enterprise, and by purchasing a condo unit you are giving investment capital and you expect a return." Moreover, Mr. Beck said, "When you look through these marketing materials, there's no question that in the mind of a reasonable consumer you're going to think it's an investment."

Folks, I'm turning up the headphones and staying in bed.

Cue Der Stingle:

We know you, they know me
Extrasensory
Synchronicity

A star fall, a phone call
It joins all
Synchronicity
It's so deep, it's so wide
You're inside
Synchronicity

Effect without cause
Sub-atomic laws, scientific pause
Synchronicity

Judge Seitz, Maybe You Should Talk to the Florida Supreme Court

In the wake of the eminently reasonable ruling by the Florida Supreme Court that appears to acknowledge that some people just don't read so good, the WSJ revisits Judge Seitz' Lochner Era-esq ruling on condo developers saying whatever the hail they want as long as the contract says otherwise:

Last month, the U.S. District Court in Miami dismissed two dozen federal lawsuits in which buyers said they were misled by an advertising brochure promising an "Olympic style" swimming pool at Opera Tower, a high-rise condo building near downtown Miami.

Plaintiffs could not reasonably rely on the drawings or advertisements, Judge Patricia Seitz ruled. The contract clearly stated the pool was L-shaped and 2,530 square feet -- smaller than Olympic size, she wrote. The developers claimed that "Olympic style" didn't refer to the pool's size but to the fact that it would have lanes.

The decision was a big loss for consumer rights, says Miami Beach attorney Kent Harrison Robbins, who filed the lawsuits against Opera Tower. "It gives developers wide-ranging room to promise whatever they want, as long as they change it in the written contract," he says. "Honest developers will be outcompeted by dishonest ones." Mr. Robbins says he plans to appeal the decision to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

Real-estate lawyers nationally are closely monitoring the Florida lawsuits, expecting a wave of similar claims across the country as more condominium projects are completed. "The market in Florida is two years ahead of other parts of the U.S., like California or the Sunbelt states, in both the heavy downturn in prices and the lawsuits following it," says attorney Robert M. Chasnow, a partner with Holland & Knight in Washington.

Hooray, we're ahead of the curve! Kent better get this right before the 11th, or a certain Magic City Harvard Lawyer will not be muy happy:

"We are going to see a number of cases where buyers are successful, primarily in areas where something substantial was altered in the project and those that were not delivered on time," says Jared H. Beck of Beck & Lee, a law firm in Miami. "The decisions represent just a tiny sliver of the universe of grounds for buyers' claims in the ongoing litigation war between buyers and developers."

"A tiny sliver of the universe" -- a nice turn of phrase... if you're Carl Sagan. There are literally "billions and billions of grounds..."

I kid I kid -- good luck and godspeed, gentlemen.