Magistrate Judge Brown Has Another Interesting Case!

Judge Brown Has Another Case

Longtime readers know I am a great fan of Magistrate Judge Brown so I'm pleased to see he's got more on his plate than toe-tapping footsie follies.

For example, here he is presiding over one of the most painful episodes in all litigation -- a fight over where to hold a mediation.

That mind-numbing dispute is almost as idiotic as fighting over the location of a deposition, but possesses a bit more irony given that the dispute is over where to meet to try to resolve the underlying dispute.

Anyways, Judge B handles it as only he can:

Rarely, if ever, in the Court's thirty-eight plus years of experience in the Judeo/Legal system has the court seen "so much about so little". Motley Rice does not want to attend mediation at the Podhurst offices. The reasons for same are, to be kind, unclear. This is a mediation - not a trial...the Podhurst employees will not be jurors deciding this matter. Motley Rice can bring an electronics expert to check the "break-out room" Podhurst offers to be used, so as to make sure it isn't bugged.

The Podhurst firm doesn't want to go to Plantation - it is too inconvenient. The Podhurst firm litigates all over the country .. .indeed all over the world ... but Plantation is too inconvenient. Apparently there are no direct flights from Miami to Plantation. Podhurst's position is bolstered, in part, by the allegation that "other interested Parties ... have indicated an intent to attend the mediation ... " (page 3 of the response). "Edward Montoya, whose work with Motley Rice is the subject of this lien, needs to attend the mediation. Counsel for some of the Defendants involved... have also indicated that they would attend the mediation ... ". (ld.) Apparently someone needs to point out that mediation is NOT a public proceeding. See Local Rule 16(g)(2) ... and while on the subject of actually citing law, the Court notes that neither party cited any as regards the location of the mediation ... probably because it's more a matter of professionalism than adversarial legality.

Thanks to the loyal tipster who forwarded this along -- your No-Prize is in the mail!

I don't say this often, but read the whole thing.

From the Water is Wet Department....

Every so often we have to feed our dear readers:

Authors Bram Van den Bergh, Siegfried DeWitte, and Luk Warlop (KULeuven, Belgium) found that the desire for immediate rewards increased in men who touched bras, looked at pictures of beautiful women, or watched video clips of young women in bikinis running through a park.

"It seems that sexual appetite causes a greater urgency to consume anything rewarding," the authors suggest. Thus, the activation of sexual desire appears to spill over into other brain systems involved in reward-seeking behaviors, even the cognitive desire for money.

"After they touched a bra, men are more likely to be content with a smaller immediate monetary reward," writes Bram Van den Bergh, one of the study's authors. "Prior exposure to sexy stimuli may influence the choice between chocolate cake or fruit for dessert."

The authors believe the stimuli bring men's minds to the present as opposed to the future. "The study demonstrates that bikinis cause a shift in time preference: Men live in the here and now when they glance at pictures featuring women in lingerie. That is, men will choose the immediately available rewards and seek immediate gratification after sex cue exposure."

Now I know what to bring to my next mediation!