Coral Gables attorney Joe Klock described his friend as a quiet man who doesn't challenge others. "I don't think he was ready for prime time," he said.Ok, so that made it in.
The whodunit case of Nicolas Estrella’s sunken yacht has dramatically changed course, as a witness now claims he was told that the Key Biscayne tycoon steered a plot to sink his vessel off the Bahamas to collect the insurance money.Well, let's see -- it's definitely hearsay in that it was a statement made by another to the affiant.
The sworn statement from witness Eric MacKenzie is the first apparent link implicating Estrella in the alleged plot. Estrella strongly denies the allegation, which his attorney called “double and triple hearsay.”
Because the district court found that class representatives were unlikely to prevail at trial, the district court found that Disney’s agreement to produce and make available the ESVs is a beneficial remedy for the class. This finding does not constitute an abuse of discretion. If Disney prevails at trial, the class will be left with no remedy at all. This settlement precludes such a Draconian result and ensures that a stand-up mobility device is available at Disney Resorts that conforms to its unique safety requirements. Therefore, we conclude that the district court’s finding that the settlement results in a “fair, adequate, and reasonable” remedy within the range of possible recoveries is also not an abuse of discretion.Wow -- people still use Segways?
A fashionista lawyer who returned black denim shorts to Forever 21 but received a penny less than what she paid is suing the retailer on behalf of fellow customers who "number in the thousands, spread over several states."
Carolyn Kellman, whose fashion sense was profiled in the Miami Herald in 2007, paid $14.46 for the shorts at the Forever 21 store in the Dolphin Mall on May 12, the complaint filed by Kevin Love of Criden & Love in South Miami said.
Kellman, an attorney with the Strickland Law Firm in Coral Gables, returned the shorts to the Forever 21 in the Shops@Sunset Place on May 30 but was credited $14.45, "or exactly $0.01 less," the complaint said.
On June 27, Kellman was charged $11.57 for a skirt, also black, at the Sunset Place store. She returned it July 13 and was credited $11.56, according to the complaint, which attaches copies of her receipts and alleges breach of contract, unfair and deceptive practices, and unjust enrichment.Query -- if you shop at Forever 21 does that make you "fashionista"?
Arthur Rice, a name partner in the firm, said in an e-mail Tuesday night that he had not yet read the complaint.Is it too early for some Xanax?
``Having said that I know Steve Lippman and he is a man of integrity and until we are shown competent evidence to the contrary he will remain a valued member of our firm. I and other members of our firm have considerable experience in fraud recovery work and it is our collective experience that in cases such as this things are not always what they appear to be.''
Lippman made a last-minute attempt Thursday to postpone the depositions until the court could clarify whether transcripts of the depositions could be released.Here is the docket -- smart PACER kids, tell me where is Judge Ray's Order?
During an emergency hearing on Monday, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Ray barred the news media and the public from attending the Lippmans’ depositions at their request.
But Ray’s order, which came down Wednesday afternoon, said that counsel for the firm’s bankruptcy trustee “shall make the transcripts available to the press and public.”
Following an emergency hearing Thursday morning, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John K. Olson, who was filling in for Ray who is on vacation, ruled from the bench that transcripts could not be released until April 9, giving the Lippmans the chance to either appeal Ray’s order or file a motion for reconsideration.
Lippman’s attorney, Patrick Scott of GrayRobinson, said making the transcripts available could cause embarrassment to his clients."Yeah, just like my to-do list," Scott added.
“The entire transcript could end up on the blog within minutes or hours or days after the deposition ended,” Scott said in court Thursday
In arguing to close the deposition, Lippman’s attorney, Patrick Scott, said of the case: “This is a case where there’s a very low public interest.”DING DING DING DING DING!!!
The suit concerns Sanchez’s representation of Rivero, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to misusing $700,000 out of $3 million he was paid by the Miami-Dade Housing Agency to build affordable housing for senior citizens. Rivero admitted diverting public money to build himself a dream house in South Miami and was sentenced to more than a year in prison. He was recently released.Roberto says it's all H.R. Pufncrap:
The primary allegation in the civil suit is that Sanchez and her law firm aided Rivero in a scheme to switch copies of a property deed, one that was witnessed and one that was invalid because it was not witnessed. The in-laws claim Rivero promised the deed in exchange for $1 million, but they received the worthless version.
Among the more explosive charges alluded to in the suit are that Sanchez had an affair with Rivero when he was married and he was paying her personal bills, which was “inappropriate to the attorney-client relationship.” Hall represented Rivero’s ex-wife in their divorce.
The law firm and Sanchez “acted professionally in full compliance with their ethical and legal obligations. It is unfortunate that a lawyer with a long-standing impeccable reputation must now litigate what has already been admitted by Mr. Aleman under oath in deposition testimony in the other cases: that Fowler White Burnett and Ms. Sanchez were never involved in the preparation of any improper deed or transaction.”Oh well, that's what they have courts (arbitrators?) for I guess.
26. The payments made to Rosenfeldt for salary, bonus or other distributions are collectively referred to below as the “Compensation Payments.” The Trustee challenges the reasonableness of these Compensation Payments for each of these years, based upon various factors related to the operation and profitability of law firms and attorney compensation structure. The amounts challenged as being overpayments of compensation for the 4-year period subject to this lawsuit were unreasonable and improper.Exotic reptiles?
27. The fact that significant amounts of alleged bonus or other payments to Rosenfeldt are not related to actual earned compensation ties to the timing of when Rosenfeldt received certain of such payments, and how he thereafter paid out similar amounts of money as political contributions. For example, and demonstrating it was part of a scheme to funnel cash out of RRA to use for political contributions and not to pay legitimate earned income, on May 19, 2008, Rosenfeldt, Russell Adler (“Adler”) and Steven Lippman (“Lippman”) each received an alleged bonus of $140,000 from RRA. On May 28, 2008 Rosenfeldt made a donation of $140,000 to the John McCain presidential campaign. Also on May 28, 2008, Lippman and his wife Marcy, made payments to the same campaign of $65,000 and $60,000 respectively. On June 12, 2008, Adler contributed $80,000 to the McCain campaign and his wife Katie likewise contributed $39,200. Thereafter, and through the balance of 2008 and much of 2009, Rosenfeldt, Adler and Lippman each received periodic alleged compensation payments from RRA and they (and/or their wives) then made a series of political contributions that trace close to receipt of the monies (which was received both before and after the contributions) with similar, if not identical payments then being made to the same candidates or political parties, including the McCain campaign, the Florida Republican Party, the Ohio Republican Party, the Pennsylvania Republican Party, the Missouri Republican Party, the Michigan Republican Party and Governor Charlie Crist. The bonus or other compensation payments that were used to pay for political contributions provided no consideration to RRA and thus, RRA received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for these payments.
28. The second set of payments the Trustee seeks to recover includes reimbursements for personal expenses that improperly benefited both Rosenfeldt and Suzanne Rosenfeldt. During the years 2006 through 2009, on a monthly basis, Rosenfeldt had unfettered personal use of the RRA American Express card. During this time, for his and his wife’s benefit, Rosenfeldt improperly charged to RRA over $1 million in purely personal expenses, including $439,337.45 just from December 3, 2008 through June 18, 2009. Examples of Rosenfeldt’s personal expenses paid by RRA that personally benefitted Rosenfeldt and Suzanne Rosenfeldt include: 72 pieces of jewelry purchased from J.R. Dunn Jewelers, numerous local hotel room charges, furniture for their home, vacations and personal travel, exotic reptiles, home repairs, athletic club charges, men’s and women’s clothing, groceries, charitable contributions, personal meals, general household items and other items (“Personal Expense Payments”). RRA received less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange for these expense reimbursements.
29. The third set of payments the Trustee seeks to recover includes reimbursements for payments made by RRA to Rosenfeldt which were classified in RRA’s financial records as “loans” and are referred to below as the “Rosenfeldt Loans.” These payments were reflected by numerous checks written by RRA to Rosenfeldt from the RRA operating account, often in random dollar amounts. The loan checks were sometimes issued on the same day with a loan check in numbered sequence to another RRA partner, Steven Lippman (“Lippman”). Typically, Rosenfeldt would deposit each check into his personal bank account, then shortly after the deposit by Rosenfeldt of the RRA check, he would write a check out that personal account payable to RRA in an amount less than the check RRA had given him. The Rosenfeldt Loans totaled $8,960,310.75.
30. In some instances, after Rosenfeldt received a check from RRA, and rather than repaying RRA, he wrote the return check to third parties including: (a) at least one check to Kendall Sports Bar on June 19, 2006 in the amount of $61,500, (b) numerous checks to Russell Adler in amounts of $1000 to $5000 referencing “loan.”
Reviewing the pleadings, and the procedural history of this case, the Court finds no basis for a finding of contempt or any further court order with respect to this discovery. The procedural history of this case reveals that the parties have continually failed to comply with discovery obligations imposed by the Court's rules resulting in a series of motions to compel and Court Orders to resolve such disputes. The instant "emergency" is another example of such conduct and results, in large part, from plaintiff's own delay in seeking the subject discovery in a timely manner and then delaying or agreeing to delay the review of these documents until almost two months after the Court Order requiring defendant's production. Plaintiff's motion for contempt explains the problem in obtaining this discovery but offers no explanation for its own lack of diligence in pursuing this discovery. Also, plaintiff fails to file the requisite memorandum of law with its motion citing any authority for an entry of contempt under the circumstances here. This, too, is a violation of the rules of this Court and constitutes a separate reason for the denial of this motion.Ouch.
23. The second set of payments the Trustee seeks to recover includes reimbursements for payments made by RRA to Lippman which were classified in RRA’s financial records as “loans” or “other compensation” and are referred to below as the “Lippman Loans.” These payments were reflected by numerous checks written by RRA to Lippman over a 4 year period from the RRA operating account. Typically, Lippman would deposit each check into the bank account he maintained in the name of Lippman Valinsky & Storfer, and which Lippman and Rothstein both referred to as the “Nest Egg Account.” Usually, within a day or two of deposit by Lippman of the RRA check, he would then write a check out of the Nest Egg Account payable to RRA in an amount less than the check RRA had just given him. These loan payment checks were usually deposited into RRA’s operating account, although some were deposited into one or more RRA accounts denominated as a “trust account” or “real estate account.” The Lippman Loans totaled $8,960,310.75.Lippman's lawyer Bruce Zimet says it's all ok:
24. In some instances, after Lippman received a check from RRA, rather than repaying RRA, he wrote the return check drawn on the Nest Egg Account to third parties including: (a) 10 checks to Sterling Bank, totaling $664,953, although all of these checks appear to have been indorsed by an individual and not the payee bank; (b) a check to Kendall Sports Bar in the amount of $89,000; (c) 4 checks payable to Albert Peter, an individual who had a business relationship with Rothstein, totaling $89,723; (c) 4 checks to Banyon LLC totaling $797,000; (d) 2 checks to Rothstein totaling $463,143; and (e) various other checks to himself and Rosenfeldt.
25. The total unpaid amount of Lippman Loans, net of all repayment checks, as of the date hereof is $2,464,907.68. The payments described in the preceding paragraph provided no benefit to RRA and thus, RRA received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the unpaid Lippman Loans.
Zimet said Lippman's expenses were paid as part of his agreement with the law firm. As for the bonuses, Zimet said, Lippman earned much more money for the law firm than he received in compensation. Zimet also disputed Stettin's characterizing some figures as loans, but declined to be specific.I also liked this paragraph:
Indeed, while the scheme was ongoing, RRA rapidly grew from a 7 attorney law firm in 2002 to 70 attorneys and 80 support staff in 2009. Prior to 2005, Rothstein was a virtual unknown in legal, political, and charitable circles. Subsequent to 2005, Rothstein and RRA gained the reputation of being a highly visible law firm making direct and indirect significant political and charitable contributions to both gain influence and give the appearance of a successful law firm.Key word kidzzz: appearance.
Alright, it's starting to kick in...I'm beginning to feel better.....Karen's voice is just heavenly.....The documents for Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, filed late Tuesday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, said the firm has $1.4 billion in liabilities and only $42.9 million in assets, painting a bleak picture for recovery of claims.
The documents list $34.8 million in apparent payments to various individuals between 2007 and 2009, including many of the firm’s former employees and attorneys. In some cases, those loans were partially paid back, but there’s an outstanding balance of $23.9 million in “advances to non-debtor third parties.”
Among those on the list is Steven Lippman, who is said to have received $8.9 million. Lippman was recently hired by Rice Pugatch Robinson & Schiller in Fort Lauderdale.
According to the schedules, Lippman repaid $6.5 million, leaving an outstanding balance of $2.4 million.
Lippman could not be immediately reached for comment.
The schedules were filed by Herbert Stettin, the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee in the Chapter 11 wind-down of the firm. Stettin told the court that RRA’s books are in disarray, and he does not have complete information on many facets of the firm’s finances.
Other advances shown on the schedules include:
- Millions of dollars in loans or advances to Bova Group restaurants, none of which has been repaid. According to the schedules, RRA spent $117,000 on a planned restaurant called Bova Smoke, which never happened.
- Stuart Rosenfeldt, co-owner of RRA, received $916,011 in loans or advances. The schedules show that Rosenfeldt, who recently formed a new law firm, repaid $474,144, leaving a balance of $441,867.
- Marc Nurik received $190,000 in loans. The former RRA partner who represents Rothstein, was not repaid, according to court documents.
- The bulk of that money was paid to Nurik in 2009. He told the Business Journal in November that he was not paid a retainer to represent Rothstein and that he had ensured that he was being paid from legitimate sources.
- Riley [McDermott's, the restaurant purchased by Rothstein to become Bova] received $1.8 million in loans. The schedules show they have not been repaid.
GFM is accurate that ACE/Mr. Bennett/Ebway's counsel was "incommunicado" for the period their firm was undergoing this upheaval. Response at p.1. This is precisely why the extensions sought are appropriate. A receiver was appointed and questions about what counsel could and could not do had to be addressed. The computers were down; no email, no word processing, no research capability. Counsel are looking for new homes and making arrangements to move there. The short extensions sought under these circumstances are more than justified.In a footnote these lawyers also note that Monday, the day of this filing, RRA's "entire computer system (including emails and phone) were disabled for approximately 2-3 hours."
3. On November 3, 2009, a receiver was appointed for Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (“RRA”), counsel for plaintiffs and third-party defendant, due to its dire financial condition. Additionally, a search by law enforcement shut down RRA’s computers for 3 days last week. RRA’s account with Westlaw has been suspended, thus making any legal research a difficult task. Numerous personnel have already left RRA and it is anticipated that additional employees will depart in the near future.It's pretty incredible that under these circumstances opposing counsel did not readily agree to this request or something like it.
4. Despite these obstacles, the undersigned attorneys remain working and have continued to diligently attempt to represent their clients, including the plaintiffs and Ebway in this action, to the best of their ability despite these incredible unforeseen circumstances. It is anticipated that counsel will have to relocate their practice in the immediate future on an expedited basis. In light of these factors, it is simply impractical to comply with the present deadlines. The depositions which remain to be completed require travel to Michigan. Plaintiffs and third-party defendant have sought to schedule the depositions they desire to take within the existing discovery deadline but GFM refuses to schedule those depositions because GFM personnel are out of town on a business trip during the days requested (which are the only days left before the deadline to do so). Alternatively, plaintiffs and third party defendant have proposed a schedule (also taking into account the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday) to complete the remaining depositions that all of the parties desire to take and to provide additional information requested in GFM Corporation’s Motion to Strike Expert Witness for Failure to Comply With Disclosure Requirements [D.E. 140]. GFM’s counsel has expressed a willingness to accept this proposed schedule, but to do so would require an extension of the discovery deadline until December 4, 2009. For these reasons, it is respectfully requested (with humility and a plea for compassion) that this Court enlarge the time through and including November 23, 2009, to response to the Motion for Summary Judgment and until December 4, 2009, to complete discovery.
An interesting question is "does Scott practice law"?First, the undersigned finds that plaintiffs' motion does not adequately comply with the local rules. The motion does not attach the discovery requests or the responses thereto. As such, the Court cannot discern what obligations, if any, have not been complied with. Further, the undersigned notes that neither party seems to wish to comply with the certification requirements of meaningfully conferring with counsel in an effort to resolve a dispute. A phone call which actually occurs between counsel or a substantive correspondence would be a de minimus requirement to comply with the rule established by this Court. Finally, the undersigned finds the "memorandum of law" wholly inadequate to establish the relief requested in that general case law which does not address the specific issues before the Court do not satisfy the rule's requirements. Accordingly, the motion is denied with leave to refile a proper motion complying with the applicable rules.Ouch -- time to light another cigar and say goodbye to your Ferrari.
