Getting Cute With the Line Spacing?

I'm really enjoying this suit involving "The Situation" and Abercrombie & Fitch pending before Judge Lenard.

The parties are busy briefing a motion to dismiss directed to the second amended complaint, and a motion to strike stuff from that pleading, but I found this footnote to be interesting:

Plaintiffs’ one and half spaced brief (ECF No. 75) violates Judge Lenard’s order requiring that all filings be double-spaced (ECF No. 38, p. 10) and S.D. Fla. R. 5.1(a)(4) requiring 12 point font for all text including footnotes.

Hold the presses -- could this be true?

Can you imagine somebody playing with the spacing in order to get more room in the brief?

What is the world coming to!

(Just look at that spacing above.)

"The Situation" Continues to Cause a Situation for Abercrombie & Fitch!

The lawsuit over Abercrombie & Fitch's ostensible aggrievement over Michael "The Situation" Sorrentino wearing its clothing rolls on before Judge Lenard, with a second amended complaint and motion to dismiss and response.

This all after David Lichter was unable to settle the case at the end of June.

From the response:

In August of 2011, Defendants issued what they have termed a ―press release‖ as part of an international advertising campaign, using Sorrentino‘s name and the Mark in order to create enormous public awareness, notoriety and publicity of its‘ brand, its‘ stores, its‘ products and its‘ e-commerce web sites. (DE 68 Ex. B). (The ―Press Release‖) The face of the Press Release promotes the stores operated by Defendants and it directs viewers to the web addresses of their e-commerce sites, where Defendants sell their branded products. The engine that drove the huge publicity and marketing campaign that was intended (and did in fact follow), was the use of Plaintiff‘s name and the Mark. (DE 68 ¶14, 15, 33, & 57 and Ex. B).

On August 12, 2011,1 Defendants embarked on this global advertising campaign, using Sorrentino‘s name and the Mark to enhance brand awareness for its products by falsely claiming that Abercrombie had offered money to Sorrentino to stop wearing their goods. Sorrentino was humiliated and demeaned as a result of Abercrombie‘s advertising campaign. Abercrombie disseminated the Press Release among all major news distribution outlets and to other news mediums. Defendants also published the Press Release on their website and on their official Facebook page (hereafter, ―the Facebook Post‖). At no time, did Sorrentino, or anybody acting on his behalf, give implied or express permission to Defendants to use Sorrentino‘s name and/or his Mark in commerce.

Interesting question as to how much the case is worth under 540.08.  The Situation wants in excess of $5 million plus punis, obviously A&F will say it's worth much less.

Who knew the guy even wore shirts?

SFL Friday Follies!

Hey, wasn't that a wonderful investiture for new County Court Judge Spencer Multack?

With the kids, and the best friend, and Judge Holmes -- all good stuff.

Congratulations!

In non-good stuff news, self-described "good deeds" creator (hey, he actually said that!) Stuart Rosenfeldt will have to put his public works projects on hold:

Stuart Rosenfeldt, Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein's former partner and the second "R" in RRA, has been informed by the federal government that he will be indicted on criminal charges, says his attorney.

Rosenfeldt played a public role in representing the crumbling law firm in the aftermath of the implosion of Rothstein's billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. He is one of many former Rothstein law partners and business associates expected to be arrested by the feds prior to December 12, when Rothstein is scheduled to begin a grueling string of civil depositions that are expected to take 10 days to finish.

Several sources say that Russell Adler, the third named partner in the defunct Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler firm, is among those expected to be charged. Adler's attorney, Fred Haddad, didn't dispel that idea, saying he expects more indictments soon and that the the filing of criminal charges Thursday against two Rothstein associates -- Marybeth Feiss and William Boockvor -- indicated "which way the wind was blowing."

Rosenfeldt's attorney, Bruce Lehr, said federal officials informed him a few months ago that his client was going to be charged criminally. Lehr said he has been given no time frame and has no information on what exactly Rosenfeldt will be charged with.

I don't know -- three guesses, anyone?

Finally, congrats to Big Mike Casey, who along with Richard Tuschman had a judgment vacated by Judge Lenard.

Not bad, kids.

And how was your week?

The Situation Sues Abercrombie & Fitch!

And Judge Lenard has it.

Oy veh!

Here are the claims in a nutshell:

          While on the hit TV show the “Jersey Shore” and as in his everyday life, Sorrentino (along with other cast members) occasionally wore Abercrombie brand clothing.

              Starting August 2011, Defendant embarked on a grand, worldwide advertising campaign using Sorrentino’s name, image and likeness to create brand awareness for its products by falsely claiming that Defendant had offered money to Sorrentino if he would stop wearing Defendant’s goods. 

          Defendant concocted this false advertising campaign using the name and image of Sorrentino, to promote and advertise Defendant’s stores and its products. This advertising campaign claimed that Sorrentino was contrary to the “aspirational nature of the (Abercrombie) brand”.

As part of the campaign, on August 12, 2011 stories were written by the press stating that the advertising campaign was a “marketing ploy” designed “to further (Abercrombie’s) name into the marketplace with one of the hottest brands on tv” which was intentionally and strategically released at the peak of the back to school season.  A true and  correct copy of the press release is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and hereafter called the “Press Release”

        As part of the marketing ploy, Defendant contacted representatives of MTV (the network that distributes the “Jersey Shore”) and allegedly offered to pay money to the Sorrentino if he would stop wearing Abercrombie brand clothing while on the show and at other times. 

           That offer was never made to Sorrentino, nor was it ever conveyed to Sorrentino by a representative of Defendant.

           Defendant claimed in the press release that by wearing Abercrombie clothing, Sorrentino would be “causing significant damage” to the image of the Abercrombie brand.  In essence, Defendant’s campaign was to make the ridiculous claim that Sorrentino was not worthy enough to wear Abercrombie clothing or that Sorrentino was so undesirable that wearing Abercrombie clothing would cause “damage” to Defendant.  The center piece of the advertising campaign was the huge success and popularity of Sorrentino.  The falsity of the advertising campaign is further demonstrated by Defendants actions to (at the same time that they are claiming that Sorrentino was damaging their image) attempt to associate themselves with Sorrentino by openly advertising specifically designed t-shirts using the Plaintiffs’ Marks.

Not Exactly How You Should Be Practicing Law.

I hate to be all Debbie Downer today but when you read an order like this your mouth goes agape and pretty much stays that way until you obtain and down a shot of whiskey to help forget what you just read.

Can't anyone ever send over some good news?

"All Pending Motions DENIED As Moot" Merely Scrivener's Error!

 Stearns Weaver is on a roll.

In the wake of Judge Ungaro's BankAtlantic order comes this order from Judge Lenard, upholding sanctions awarded to Stearns Weaver for discovery violations in a case that was otherwise dismissed.

I found this part interesting:

Nor did this Court’s Order Dismissing Case moot the pending Motion for Sanctions.  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 motions for sanctions are collateral to the original proceeding and therefore may be considered after the action is no longer pending. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990); Montgomery & Larmoyeux by Montgomery v. Philip Morris, Inc., 19 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1335 (S.D. Fla. 1998) (Gold, J.) (district court may award attorney’s fees following remand in a separate order). The phrase “all pending motions are DENIED as moot,” as written in the Court’s form Order of Dismissal, is merely a scrivener’s error that should not preclude Defendants from continuing to exercise their prerogative to move for sanctions.

I'm always fascinated by things like this.

I agree Rule 11 sanctions are collateral and can be considered after the action is concluded, but what to do with the form order and the boilerplate language denying all pending motions as moot?

Is it sufficient to dismissively term it a "form Order" and "merely a scrivener's error" or do the words in an Order, form or not, have their unambiguously plain effect?

And how should that analysis inform us when we deal with other boilerplate language in other form documents that purport to have legal consequences?

Finally, if the words "DENIED as moot" are of no legal significance, then why are those words always there in the first place?

I hate scriveners!