Former UM Coach Frank Haith Files Rule 27 Petition in SD FL!

Former UM Coach Frank Haith has filed a Rule 27 petition before Judge Rosenbaum seeking information on how his bank records wound up in the NCAA's botched Nevin Shapiro investigation:

Haith's lawyer, Michael Buckner, is trying to determine whether information from canceled checks in the coach's account were improperly -- and possibly illegally -- obtained.

Some of Haith's bank statements were voluntarily turned over to NCAA investigators as part of the two-year old investigation of the Miami Hurricanes athletic department. The petition states that certain information could have been obtained improperly by accessing the actual microfiche reproductions of the checks. Those microfiche copies were not turned over to the NCAA, according to a source.

Methinks there are good grounds for this motion to be granted -- and thus perhaps more impropriety uncovered in the widening NCAA/Shapiro fiasco.

We Have All Been Here Before?

Wow, let's see -- Dow hits record high, Chavez is out in Venezuela -- is it the 90s all over again?

In other news, for those of you who remember this case involving a teenage girl on a Carnival cruise and an alleged invasive strip search, Judge Rosenbaum has denied Carnival's motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff's punitive damages claim:

As discussed above, there are material disputes in this case as to whether Defendant’s employees conducted a strip search, including a cavity search, of a seventeen-year-old passenger and whether Defendant’s policies permit such a search. If Defendant’s employees performed such a search, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant’s policies permitting the strip search of a minor, if supported by the facts at trial, do not rise to the type of “gross and flagrant” conduct that would support the award of punitive damages.

Hey, so there's that.

But at least they take good care of their passengers when a ship breaks down unexpectedly!

Plaintiff is represented by Kimberly Lambert at Levin Papantonio, and Carnival by Curtis J. Mase.

Pro Hac Vice -- Not for Locals Anymore!

Question:  Can an attorney who lives and practices in South Florida seek pro hac vice admission to the SD FL?

Answer:  Not really.

Ms. Centorino certifies that she is a member in good standing of the Florida state bar but not a member of the bar of this Court. D.E. 41 at 4. However, the Court notes that Ms. Centorino also resides and practices within this District. Rule 4 of the Special Rules Governing the Admission and Practice of Attorneys before this Court specifically provide that “[a]ttorneys residing and practicing within this District are expected to be members of the bar of this Court.” Ms. Centorino has not demonstrated why the Court should depart from this rule in her case, and therefore, the Court DENIES her pro hac vice motion.

Hmm, but what if your practice is limited to state court and you only appear in federal court infrequently?

You still have to pay the $201 admission fee (but no test anymore!).

In other news, now you have to be civil to each other.

"I guess what I'm trying to say is, if I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!"

"Your Honor, No Pro Se Plaintiff Can Write Like This"!

 What happens when a "pro se" plaintiff dazzles you with her legal acumen and drafting brilliance?

Why of course you cry foul and accuse the pro se scribe of having a secret Christopher Marlowe:

Defendants filed their Motion asserting that it is “manifestly apparent” that an “unknown attorney” is purporting to sign and file pleadings under pro se Plaintiff’s name. According to Defendants, this “unknown attorney” is acting in such a manner to avoid the attorney admission requirements of this Court. Defendants support their assertion by claiming that the number of Plaintiff’s filings “is typical of an established law firm” and that Plaintiff’s pleadings “assert sophisticated legal positions [and], cite legal precedent and Court rules in support of such positions,” and thus “reflect the work product of a trained legal professional, or someone working under the supervision of a trained legal professional (e.g. law student, paralegal or junior associate attorney).” D.E. 125 at 5. Defendants request that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on the basis of this so-called fraud.

So the "evidence" consists of quality legal writing and knowledge of legal precedent and Court rules?

Maybe somebody ought to offer this person a job!

Let's see what Judge Rosenbaum has to say:

The competent quality of a party’s pleadings is not a basis for striking them. Defendants have offered no evidence that indicates someone other than Plaintiff has been filing documents on his behalf, and except for the lone mention of a law firm during discovery, Defendants have offered no evidence that Plaintiff is even in contact with someone who is providing him with legal advice.  Nevertheless, assuming for the sake of argument that Plaintiff is receiving legal advice (which by itself violates no rule), no one but Plaintiff has entered an appearance in this Court on Plaintiff’s behalf. Therefore, Rule 4 of the Special Rules Governing the Admission and Practice of Attorneys of the Local Rules of this Court is inapplicable. And in any event, Rule 4 does not provide the basis for dismissing a complaint. At most, it creates an issue for the bar regulating the alleged covertly practicing attorney. There is certainly nothing here that requires, let alone permits, this Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s case based on Defendants’ respect for the quality of Plaintiff’s briefs.

This seems somewhat obvious, don't you think?

It'd be interesting to assert the opposite -- that the shoddy quality of opposing counsel's work clearly proves that it is being ghost-written by an untrained, unwashed nudnick.

That probably happens more often.

Don't Argue Alter Ego Theory With Ed Ricci!

 I  caught this in the DBR this morning:

"Costa Cruise Lines is the alter ego of Carnival," said Edward Ricci, whose lawsuit seeks to represent Giglio Island tourist-related businesses that claim the disaster deterred visitors, polluted environmentally sensitive local waters and depressed property values.

I think Costa's in trouble on this one.