Our Long National Rosh Hashanah Nightmare is Over!

Way back in September we did a wee little post about Gene Stearns getting sanctioned by Judge Freeman for refusing to move a deposition scheduled for Rosh Hashanah, which got picked up by AboveTheLaw.

We followed that post with Gene's motion for reconsideration, which provided some context for what the parties were arguing about, and in the comments I even offered a solution.

Well Judge Greeman has granted the motion for reconsideration, which you can read here.

Well done!

(The Judge still would have required the deposition to be moved to another day.)

Of course I found this part interesting:

Shortly after this Court's order awarding sanctions was ordered, a story appeared in two blogs widely read by practicing attorneys both locally and nationally (ed. note -- thanks Judge!), interpreting the behavior of Plaintiff's counsel -- and this Court's apparent condemnation of it -- in a manner that grossly distorts the truth and reflects both badly and unfairly on the legal system in general and Plaintiff's counsel in particular.   Plaintiff's counsel says about the blog postings that it is difficult to say which was worse, being falsely described as anti-Semitic or being falsely supported for being anti-Semitic.  The Court is sympathetic to that view.

Hold on, Judge -- if you look at our two postings we tried to play it pretty fair and even posted Gene's motion for reconsideration in full.  And we don't let commenters go crazy like they do on ATL (or the Herald, for that matter).

Still, it's nice to be loved.

Gene Stearns Moves to Reconsider Rosh Hashanah Sanctions Motion!

Our post yesterday on Judge Freeman's sanctioning of Stearns Weaver for refusing to move a deposition scheduled for Rosh Hashanah was picked up by ATL (thanks Staci!).

Now Gene Stearns is back before Judge Freeman, asking her to reconsider baby:

The Court should reconsider and vacate the portion of its September 27,2011 Order Granting Dupont's Motion for Protective Order, to the extent that it awards attomeys' fees against Plaintiffs' counsel, without permitting Plaintiffls counsel to explain the circumstances that led to its position. In his entire career, Plaintiff's counsel has never been sanctioned. A finding of sanctions here, without even hearing Plaintiff s explanation of the circumstances, is not consistent with Florida law.

Read it and decide for yourself. 

If the judge grants this someone please let me know.

More Judicial Departures; More Coming?

Anyone who knows our judges know they are distressed over antics in Tally, openly griping (ok, more so than usual) and are considering their options.

So it is with some sadness that confirmation arrives of 3d DCA Judge David Gersten's departure as well as Circuit Judge Mary Barzee Flores.

I really like this quote from Judge B:

“The enthusiasm among some in Tallahassee to slash spending on our court system, coupled with the staggering volume of new case filings driven by current economic conditions, poses a grave threat to our society.”

Big losses for justice in South Florida, but we thank them for their service and wish them the very best and great success in private practice. 

Three guesses on who's next?

"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!

We're Number One!

At mortgage fraud.

You didn't think I would say education, arts, charity, or civic responsibility did you?

Jonathan Heller says this is good for business not surprising:

Jonathan Heller, a Miami defense lawyer defending a client who he believes was a victim of mortgage fraud, said he is not surprised by South Florida's ranking.

``When you have mortgage brokers who are unsavory, who are fueled by irresponsible lenders, it's like the perfect storm,'' he said.

But that's why we love it here!

What else?

Congrats to Stearns Weaver partner David Pollack who just bought a nice Grove condo.

Ahh screw this.

You know what, it's too nice out for me to sit here and pretend to work.

I think I'll make an obligatory appearance, glad hand for a while, and like a nice Jewish goy go see the Vatican Splendors up in Fort Lauderdale, then walk along the river and smoke a big fat cigar.

You guys are on your own for a while.

SFL Friday -- White Men Can't Think Either.

Well it's been a rough week and I'm starting to ease my way out of the office to catch a few waves.

I know a lot of you weekend warriors fashion yourselves to be "good" basketball players, so you may be interested in this new and exciting B-Ball league.

There's only one catch:

"Only players that are natural born United States citizens with both parents of Caucasian race are eligible to play in the league," the statement said.

Oy.

But I'm sure there's a very fine reason to return us to the 1950s, before basketball was integrated and the world was just like Pleasantville only better:

AABA's Lewis describes his project as "a league for white players to play fundamental basketball, which they like ... instead of 'streetball' played by 'people of color.'"

Just who is the target audience for this -- elderly racists?

It's not clear, but why do I think members of the Tribe aren't going to make the roster either?

(Must be the old random circumcision check -- also popular in the 50s.)

Now that I think of it, they're probably not too keen on Catholics either.

BTW, my friend Alan Fein thinks this guy is meshugga:

"It strikes me as discriminatory on its face without any real justification," says Alan Fein, a Miami-based sports-law and First Amendment attorney who serves as outside counsel to the Miami Heat. "You can base membership on some sort of objective standard, like height or vertical ability, but I don't think this league would stand up, if challenged."

Alan's trying to be polite, but I won't -- you sir are an idiot.

Wow, now I really want get out of here.

Before I do, I need to bone up on my legal defense strategies, try not to make people angry, and -- big surprise -- John Mayer is still a jerk.

Remember, there are lots and lots of volunteer opportunities this weekend and for once George W. Bush is right -- send money.

Have a great weekend!