3d DCA Watch -- Relation Back to the Future!

Hi kids, the bunker denizens have spoken thusly:

Kopel v. Kopel:

Hey, how cool is it that the appellant is named Bernie Kopell?

Oh, also the 3d reversed a $5 million jury verdict based on a faulty application of the "relation back" doctrine.

Florida Diversified v. Simon Roofing:

Shocking -- mass confusion over how to apply the offer of judgment statute, here in a situation where appellate attorneys' fees were previously awarded:

In a prior appeal from this same underlying case, FDF filed a motion for appellate attorney’s fees based on the same proposal for settlement now at issue. In the prior appeal, Simon Roofing, the defendant, objected to FDF’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees based on the proposal for settlement, arguing that FDF made the proposal in bad faith. This Court, after considering the arguments and the record, ultimately granted FDF’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees. Simon Roofing then filed a motion for rehearing, raising the same arguments now raised in the instant appeal, and suggesting that they had been overlooked by this Court. Again, this Court rejected Simon’s arguments, and denied Simon Roofing’s motion for rehearing.

Accordingly, FDF’s entitlement to attorney’s fees based on its proposal for settlement became the law of the case.

Jones v. Rizzo:

Practice note -- when asserting "excusable neglect," you should provide some sworn evidence.

Bank of NY v. Reyes:

No such thing as a cause of action for "attempted wrongful foreclosure."

Wells Fargo v. Aristo:

Not good when Judge Salter writes something like this:

Then-counsel for Aristo led the trial judge into error.

The Judge also wistfully "relates back" to a simpler time, when opposing counsel would get drunk together at Sally Russell's and settle cases with some purely hetero grabass and a shot of whiskey lawyers would actually call each other:

At the risk of viewing professional courtesy through rose-colored glasses, we can also recall a day when counsel appearing without opposition for a hearing on an obviously-contested matter—one in which the contending pleadings each sought priority to a six-figure sum of money—would first place a telephone call to opposing counsel to confirm that some personal emergency or postal glitch had not occurred.

Sadly, your honor, those days appear gone for good.

Hey Baby, Do You "Meet and Confer" Here Often?

In Miami, back in the old days, lawyers used to meet and confer over drinks at Sally Russell's and inevitably wind up going home with each other's wives.

Hey, it was the 70s!

But like our President we evolved, and by the 80s we had teams of waiting "faxers" who would instantly (well, it took about 25 minutes) send late-Friday nastygrams to opposing counsel, designed to ruin the weekend and necessitate a faxed response on Sunday.

Aah such pleasant memories....

But now we can "meet and confer" by having a Twitterwar, or by pinning mean things about each other on Pinterest, or via my personal favorite -- assembling a guild of World of Warcraft characters who simultaneously attack and destroy opposing counsel in a dungeon.

Either way, the one thing we NEVER do is actually speak with each other face to face.
 
But there's a new Sheriff federal judge in town, and he kicks it old-school:

Apparently, the parties disagree as to whether the Court’s Initial Order requires them to meet and confer in person or whether a telephone conference will do. The Court’s Order provided that, within the time prescribed, “the parties shall meet and confer regarding discovery and scheduling issues, as set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Local Rule 16.1(b).” See Initial Order ¶ 2 [ECF No. 2]. This District’s Local Rule 16.1(b) expressly states that the parties shall meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by other comparable means[.]”  See S.D. Fla. L. R. 16.1(b)(1). This Court has not ordered otherwise. Accordingly, the parties are free to meet by telephone, if they prefer. The Court has no preference, as long as the conference is conducted in timely fashion and the parties comply with their obligations set forth in the Rules and the Court’s Initial Order.

So WoW dungeon-war it is!!

But then there is this:

This Court is not in the business of babysitting the parties.

Such bright-eyed optimism, and I certainly hope he's correct -- but has he seen how our Bar behaves?

Breaking -- DCBA to Shutter Courthouse Night Box!

Like many of you, I received a note this morning from the DCBA, marking yet another passage of an era:

The Dade County Bar Association will no longer provide a filing box at the Dade County Courthouse for Third District Court of Appeal filings. All filings can now be made at the Third District Court of Appeal, in the night filing box located adjacent to the entrance steps at the Third District Court of Appeal, which is located at 2001 SW 117 Avenue, in Miami, Florida.  

Attorneys can now file directly at the Third District Court of Appeal throughout the evening and early morning. Documents place in the box prior to 8:00 a.m. will be clocked in as being "nightbox" filed as of the previous business day. There is no fee for using the filing box at the Third District Court of Appeal.

Since 1976, the DCBA has maintained a night filing box for the Third District Court of Appeal, located in the Clerk's Office at the Dade County Courthouse. Due to budget cuts affecting the Clerk of the Courts, that office reduced its hours and commenced closing at 4:00 p.m., thus eliminating the option of night filing.

Who else can remember late-night rushes to 73 West Flagler to drop off your expertly written pleading, followed by libations at Sally Russells, at which point everyone promptly forgot what case they were working on?