3d DCA Watch -- Well Well Well?

Well well well let's first wish Judge Ramirez congratulations again for his service and best wishes in his new role as JAMS mediator.

It was a very nice retirement party -- Rudy Sorondo told a few tales, Chief Judge Wells quoted John Lennon (hey, so did I!), Judge R thanked his family, clerks, JAs and colleagues, in all it was a very lovely event.

Oh, and the Judge's portrait was revealed, very striking:

(Oops, wrong photo!)

I kid -- it was a very nice ceremony and we wish the Judge much continued success.

Speaking of Rudy Sorondo, here he is arguing for the appellants in a case where Judge Manno-Shurr struck the defendants' pleadings based on fraud on the court:

On August 13, 2010, the Bank filed its Motion to Strike, alleging the defendants schemed to defraud the trial court by submitting perjured deposition testimony, suborning and attempting to suborn perjury, and forging corporate documents, all in an effort to conceal the Cohens’ ownership interests in the Corporate Defendants and Offshore Entities. On October 1, 2010, the trial court commenced an evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Strike, and received evidence over a three-day period. After the hearing, the trial court concluded the defendants intended to defraud the Florida court, and struck their pleadings. Upon review of the case law and the voluminous record, we affirm in part, and reverse in part.

Basically, Judge Rothenberg's opinion goes into exquisite detail and upholds the lower court ruling, except as to one defendant (not represented by Rudy).  It ends this way:

While we are mindful of Florida’s strong public policy favoring the resolution of cases on their merits, the judiciary cannot be, and is not, impotent against those wishing to corrupt the litigation process by employing fraud and deception at every turn. Accordingly, we affirm the default judgment as it pertains to the Cohens and the Corporate Defendants because the record evidence establishes, clearly and convincingly, that these litigants have engaged in a massive and unprecedented scheme to defraud the trial court below.

Not a pretty picture (I don't mean the hot tub -- I love that picture!).

Your Friday Sanctions Order!

Order Granting Renewed Motion for Default

This is the sanctions order in the Chris Korge/Claudio Osorio matter before Judge Manno Schurr we talked about the other day.

I must admit it does paint a pretty bleak picture of discovery abuse.

Happy Friday!

Can Someone Explain This?

Judge Valerie Manno Schurr appointed Mark Meland as a receiver for a company after finding it in "default" for failing to turn over financial records to South Florida power broker Chris Korge, who is represented by Kendall Coffey.

Huh?

Was the "default" a discovery sanction?  Did the Judge strike the defendant's pleadings?  Is that what the "default" means?

How do you get from a discovery sanction to the appointment of a receiver?

Even if the obligation to turn over records was contractual, as opposed to arising from the defendant's discovery obligations, I'm not following how a finding of "default" leads to the appointment of a receiver to run the business.

Maybe Bob Zarco, who represents the defendant, can explain this one, because something seems off about this story.

Judge Manno Schurr Faces Federal "Lawsuit"(?)

High Art Complaint

I've previously noted William S. Burroughs and his "cut-up technique," where you take a perfectly understandable linear text, cut it up into individual words or phrases, and then reassemble it all back together again into a new, wholly inexplicable and completely non-linear artistic expression.

Well that seems to have happened in this new federal lawsuit filed against Judge Manno Schurr.

I'm rarely this effusive, but let me be clear -- I believe these pro se litigants have lifted the mechanical, soul-sucking drudgery of preparing a complaint into the lofty realms of high art.

Indeed, these visionaries should be applauded for confronting and challenging the reader, and for daring to radically reimagine -- nay -- for quite literally unshackling us -- from the small-minded, restrictive and fundamentally bourgeois chains of Rule 8(a).

I'm fairly certain Judge King will see it the same way, don't you agree?

3d DCA Watch -- Judge Schwartz Explains The "Ground" of Benevolence And Compassion.

Hi kids!

I just started R. Crumb's newly published book -- four years in the making -- which is an illustrated word-for-word graphic retelling of the entire Book of Genesis.

Here is Amazon's blurb on it:

This eagerly awaited graphic work retells the first book of the Bible in a profoundly honest way. Peeling away the theological and scholarly interpretations that have often obscured its most dramatic stories, R. Crumb—using the actual text word for word—has imagined the Bible as it really was. Now, readers of every persuasion—Crumb fans, comic book lovers, history buffs, and believers—can gain astonishing new insights from these harrowing, visceral, and even juicy stories. Crumb’s The Book of Genesis reintroduces readers to Adam and Eve’s Eden, Noah’s Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Pharaoh’s Egypt. Using clues from the text, Crumb fleshes out the parade of biblical originals: from the sensitive dreamer Joseph to the crafty Jacob, to the still-fetching Sarah, to God Himself. The result, four years in the making, is a tapestry of extraordinary detail, the finest work of Crumb’s legendary career.

So far I have to agree with Amazon -- it's as good as they say -- with lots and lots of Biblical canoodling and plenty of God's wrath.

The reason I mention it now is because Judge Schwartz drops some wrath of his own on Judge Valerie Manno Schurr.

Her crime? Showing unwarranted judicial compassion by routinely granting continuances to homeowners facing foreclosure sales.

Here's what Judge Schurr said that got her in trouble:

I was trying to make everybody happy.
. . . .
We have so many foreclosures here and I give
continuances on these sales. I just do.
. . . .
Unless it is so abundantly clear to me that it is just an
abuse of the process, I give extensions on these because I
don’t want anybody to lose their house. If there is any
chance that he can do this deal, get the money and try to
save this home, you know, people are having a hard time
now. They are having a difficult time. Everybody
knows it. Businesses are failing. People are losing
money in the stock market. You know, unemployment is
high. It’s just everybody knows that we are in a bad time
right now and I hate to see anybody lose their home.

Oy.

Ok, I agree this could have been better worded (or not expressed on the record) and perhaps a more suitable basis can be found for the discretionary extension of a foreclosure sale under certain circumstances.

And guess what -- Judge Schwartz didn't like this speech either:

Although granting continuances and postponements are, generally speaking, within the discretion of the trial court, the “ground” of benevolence and compassion (or the claim asserted below that the defendants might be able to arrange a sale of the property during the extended period until the sale) does not constitute a lawful, cognizable basis for granting relief to one side to the detriment of the other, and thus cannot support the order below: no judicial action of any kind can rest on such a foundation.

For good measure the Judge cites Canakaris, a case that pleases me almost as much as Venetian Salami.

Indeed, that Justice Cardozo language never grows old:

The judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to “the primordial necessity of order in the social life.” Wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that remains.

B. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 141 (1921).

Maybe it's all that Book of Genesis imagery swirling around in my head, but I actually agree with Judge Schwartz here -- there has to be a better articulation of the grounds for exercising discretion than simply "people are hurting."

Oh boy.