Joe Klock Asks Magistrate Judge Brown for an "Extension of Mercy."

Kids, when you need to ask a judge for an enlargement of time, this is how you do it:

This request is not meant to delay any matters before this Court.  The Order was issued in the middle of the holiday season, and as Plaintiffs' counsel clearly was not working as hard as the Court, were not addressed until after New Year's.  Moreover, if the extension of mercy is not sufficient cause, then Plaintiffs would suggest that waiting until after the pretrial stipulation may narrow the issues that the parties intend to try and the evidence which they intend to offer.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs, JC Atorcha, emailed and called counsel Robert Browning, in a good faith attempt to confer as to whether or not INA would oppose such relief.  Undersigned counsel has not heard back from Mr. Browning, who may or may not still be celebrating the holidays.

Indeed, that may or may not be a photograph of Mr. Browning taken mid-revelry earlier this morning.

(I'm sure he'll get back to JC later on today.....)

Magistrate Judge Brown Refuses to Sanction Plaintiffs!

I guess that's good news?

Read the order and see for yourself:

Interestingly, and not surprisingly, the response starts with attacking the Court and then jumps into the argument made at the hearing.  The first paragraph of the order to which this is a response begins with the fact that "[N]o law has been cited for the filing of "objections" to a hearing...." and "[T]o the extent the Court construes same as motions (sic) again they violate Local Rule 7.1(a)(1)".  This is totally ignored in the response.  Apparently things like following the law and the local rules take a significant backseat to ranting and raving and attacking the Court.  Nonetheless it is those very rules and laws that govern our practice and procedure.

The ranting includes using a statement made by the Court after the plaintiffs filed their objections to the hearing (in D.E. 1094) as justification for the filings they made before any such statement was made!

It goes on (downhill?) from there.

Does Anyone Really Care About Time?

I don't know if you guys know this, but Magistrate Judge Brown is presiding over a very interesting case.

So interesting that the Judge is requiring the plaintiffs to explain in detail what happened from day one to the date an enlargement of time is sought:

This matter is before this Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time ... (D.E. 1177).

The Court has considered the motion and all pertinent materials in the file.

The reasons for this motion, in the short run, are certainly reasonable. The question that arises is why, in so many situations, are plaintiffs needing these extensions. What has happened from the beginning of a situation (as opposed to just the last few days before deadlines) that requires said filing(s)?

The Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said motion be and the same is hereby GRANTED. The reply shall be filed on or before Tuesday, December 7, 2010. No further extensions will be considered. However, any future motions for extension of time shall include a history from the beginning of the event that resulted in the need for an extension of time.

 I agree!

In fact, why stop at the "beginning of the event"?

(There may be a need to be flexible with page limitations)

Because I Don't Have a Wooden Heart.

"The Motion for protective order is GRANTED."

Wife of Lawyer Fails to Arrange Birth Around Husband's Deposition Schedule.

Baby Motion

Since last we checked in on our favorite SD FL case, there have been about forty EMERGENCY MOTIONS TO EXPEDITE BRIEFING ON EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER or something like this.

But surely one of the best recent filings has to be this one where various depositions were all scheduled to be taken on July 13th:

The deposition of Mr. Strickland was scheduled to be and is to be taken by Hugh Morgan, Joe Klock was to defend the deposition of Mr. Brakenhoff, and Juan Carlos Antorcha was scheduled to take the deposition of Mr. Pennekamp, however this morning Mr. Antorcha's wife went into labor and subsequently delivered her baby.

The footnote at the end of this sentence is as follows:

Undersigned counsel had specifically asked Mrs. Antorcha over last weekend to arrange the delivery for Friday evening, July 16, after 6:00 P.M., but Ms. Carolina Antorcha, with whom counsel was unable to converse, apparently was unwilling to accommodate the request.

The nerve!

What the hail is wrong with Ms. Antorcha -- didn't she get the specific request from counsel to delay her labor until after 6:00 P.M. on Friday -- not a minute earlier -- but now it's all about Ms. Antorcha and her selfish "unwillingness" to accommodate a simple and very clear request to delay her child's birth to a date certain so her hubby can take an important deposition!!!

I am sick to death of women and their narcissistic, ill-timed "birthing" obsessions.

Love and mazel tov on the new addition,

Mel Gibstein.

(I realize the footnote is sarcasm....I hope?).

Joe Klock 3.0 -- Suing Insurance Companies At a Small Firm?

But where will he park his corporate jet:

Prominent South Florida litigator Joseph Klock Jr. is leaving the Miami office of Epstein Becker & Green after two years to join the Coral Gables firm of Rasco Reininger Perez Esquenazi & Vigil as a name partner today.

The firm’s new name will be Rasco Klock Reininger Perez Esquenazi Vigil & Nieto.

Klock, who was forced out as managing partner of Steel Hector & Davis before its 2005 merger with Squire Sanders & Dempsey, left that firm to join Epstein Becker in February 2007.

So two years at SSD, two years at Mike Casey's shop, and now a small firm in the Gables. Here is Joe's explanation for the move:

Klock said he left because client conflicts prevented him from pursuing cases at the 400-lawyer Epstein Becker firm, and his experience with the firm was positive.

“They treated me very well,” he said. “A lot of their success has caused me some problems. They represent so many insurance companies, it represents a conflict from my practice point of view.”

When asked if compensation was a factor, Klock said, “Let’s put it this way, I wouldn’t be making a move if I thought I’d be making less money.”

In other words, Joe is now a plaintiff's lawyer who wants to sue insurance companies? Oh well, it's Miami -- you can be anybody you want to be.

He's bringing three lawyers too:

Steve Reininger, co-founder of Rasco Reininger Perez Esquenazi & Vigil, said Klock is bringing three attorneys with him, including Epstein associate Juan Carlos Antorcha and Berger Singerman shareholder Gabriel Nieto, who will join the firm as a partner. Klock said he’s also bringing Epstein Becker associate Rashida Ivy with him as an associate.

And here is Epstein's Mike Casey on the departure:

Michael Casey, managing partner of Epstein Becker & Green’s Miami office, said Klock’s departure is amicable.

He said Klock’s new firm offered him a strong compensation package and a name partnership. Casey said he didn’t know compensation details.

“They cut him a great deal,” Casey said. “He’s going to be a name partner in the firm, which is important to Joe and a lot of people, and as far as I know they cut him probably a great deal on the comp issues too.”
Epstein Becker will continue its working relationship with Klock by referring cases to him and accepting referrals from him, Casey said.

“He’s been a friend of mine for over 30 years,” Casey said.

“I wish him all the best, continued success and good health.”

Mike, it's nice to be positive and all, but tone it down a little -- you seem more thrilled about the move than anybody.

I'm kidding, I'm kidding -- this all seems like a win-win.

Congrats to all, and good luck at Rasco Klock Reininger Perez Esquenazi Vigil & Nieto (oy -- let's call it "RKRPEVN" for short).