After reviewing the record, we conclude that the Plaintiffs’ claims that we address fail as a matter of law because the Plaintiffs have either failed to prove that their expenses were reasonable and necessary or failed to prove their damages altogether.And so it ends as it began -- with a leaky yacht.
“In addition, Yovonka and I are very concerned about the issue of cannibalism and the number of cases that are being reported in other states and countries, such as Alabama, Canada, Maryland, Japan and Sweden,” Allred said.A brave position, certainly, but where's the rebuttal? What lawyer plans to challenge Ms. Allred on her provocative statement?
Notice is hereby given that Peter Halmos, International Yachting Charters, Inc., and High Plains Capital Corporation, plaintiffs in the above named case, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered in this action on November 22, 201 1 (D.E. 1431) (Ex. 1).I wonder if there are any appellate issues?
To be sure, this was a most unusual and unique case. The saga endured by plaintiffs might well make a script for a book. (Ed. -- or a whole mess of blog posts!) The ensuing claims addressed by defendant were as far from "run of the mill'' as anyone could imagine. The Court is not without sympathy for the ordeal plaintiffs went through. Indeed, the record is full of indicators of sympathy on several fronts -including that of at least one of the adjusters handling this case. This clearly contributed to the most unusual happenstance of - on more than one occasion - the defendant paying claims without supporting documentation, simply on the "say-so'' of Mr. Halmos, and in the end resulted in more than one substantial overpayment. The uncontroverted evidence is that an almost symbiotic relationship developed between Mr. Halmos and the primary INA adjuster, Pamela Harting- Forkey . . . until supporting materials for claim s were requested and claims began to be questioned. lt then turned quite adversarial - at least on the part of plaintiffs. Notwithstanding said sympathy, however, the Court reaches its decisions herein without being "influenced in any way by sympathy, or by prejudice, for or against anyone.'' Eleventh Circuit Standard Instruction regarding Consideration of The Evidence.Let's just say the case came down to credibility determinations, and here's a small example of where the Judge's head was at on that issue:
Third, IYC intentionally misrepresented that the Merideth Law Firm invoices were "legal and Legal Support Services'' related to salvage and protection against loss of the Legacy due to Hurricane Wilma, even though the time was for Halmos, a non-lawyer partner in the District of Columbia-based Merideth Law Firm, and his employees. See FF 148-50. 'I'he Court finds Mr. Halmos' "partnership'' in Washington D.C. of no significance, as the alleged work done and billed) was done in Florida, not in D.C., and by Mr. Halmos' own version of the facts, was done under supervision of a Florida lawyer. There is no evidence in this record of that lawyers' affiliation with the Merideth Law Firm. In making such representations, Halmos not only violated the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, see D.C. R. Prof Conduct 5.541) (prohibiting individuals from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in other jurisdictions, such as Florida); D.C. R.Prof Conduct 5.409(2) & (3) (the nonlawyer in partnership with the District of Columbia law organization must abide by (the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct), he violated Florida law, see Fla. Stat. j 454.23 ("Any person not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice 1aw in this state who practices 1aw in this state or holds himself or herself out to the public as qualified to practice law in this state, or who willfully pretends to be, or willfully takes or uses any name, title, addition, or description implying that he or she is qualifed, or recognized by law as qualified, to practice law in this state, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in sec 775.082, sec 775.083, or sec 775.084.5').Huh?
Despite this latest motion, the journey will be coming to an end. This Court will not respond to, nor dignify, the latest attack on it except to state the following. It is without dispute that the March, 2005 letter (exhibit B20 in the trial record) is of great significance. In one breath, plaintiff would have the Court believe that plaintiffs produced this document pursuant to Fed.R.CiV.P. 34, that defendant saw this document ... a document which, viewed in a light most favorable to defendant might be grounds for voiding the entire policy and, by extension the Legacy claim from Hurricane Wilma ... yet chose not to copy it. This is particularly relevant because there is no evidence produced (at least so far ...) that said document, nor it contents, nor its subject matter was ever presented to defendant prior to the August, 2005 policy renewal which was prior to the claim arising from Hurricane Wilma.In other words: the
In the next breath, plaintiff would have the world [ed note -- why thank you, Judge!] believe that defendant knew it had the document but chose not to do any discovery, nor list any witnesses, nor list any experts regarding same - all so defendant could file its motion for sanctions (D.E. 1275). Defense counsel must have had nightmares when this "biased'' Court denied two similar motions addressing the report prepared after Hurricane Wilma from the vessel manufacturer and the alleged withholding of other materials! (See D.E. 1238, 1243 and 1284, 1287).
The Court will not allow the journey to continue any further - at least "not on its watch.''
Plaintiffs have been sanctioned and, among others, denied their rights to fully and fàirly present their case due to their alleged inability to rebut ACE et al's Fed R Civ. P 60(b)(3) prevarications.2And here's footnote 2:
About 50% of the 1,400 docket entries in this case relate to ACE et al.'s Rule 60(b)(3) planned and carefully executed schemes "directed at the judicial machinery itself . . . where the impartial function of the court have been directly corrupted.'' (Id. 4) See Motion for Relief, pp. 17-19.The "impartial function of the court have been directly corrupted"?
Affirmed. See random case cited for no apparent reason.That's pretty much what you're looking at this week.
Before Judge Brown asked any either party about consent individually, however, counsel represented to Judge Brown that the parties had all agreed to consent. Judge Brown asked the parties one at a time regarding consent only after counsel made that representation. Plaintiff's motion omits any mention of this portion of the transcript.Translation = I've got your back!
4. The continual use of demeaning and insulting language in Court orders when dealing with Plaintiffs and their counsel evinces a continual prejudice against them inappropriate for the United States District Court.Does anyone have any idea what he's talking about?
To have to scramble in the midst of trial preparation to turn around a detailed response in two days is unnerving. To then have a judge say that the deadline was sort of fluid is, to borrow the Court's phrase, "amazing."Hey, that's my line!
This case will commence on Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 9:30 A.M. This case will proceed that week and the first three(3) days of the following week. This case will resume Monday, May 16 through Wednesday May 18th, and then continue Monday, May 23rd.Ok, I can't even follow that crazy trial schedule, but I'm pretty sure everything will proceed smoothly and without incident.
The Court finds there is one simple fact missing from this motion that requires denial of same ... there is simply no showing that plaintiffs, in fact, had these documents in their possession. Suggesting that they must have ... should have ... gotta have ... doesn't change that fact.The Court then concludes:
This is a motion that is on the borderline of being in bad faith.
The Court has previously warned defendant not to continue to attempt "to kill an ant with a shotgun". To the extent that defendant ASSUMES the Court has any prejudices against plaintiffs it would be wise to understand the differences between disagreements with who runs this Court verses a lack of objectivity regarding the case.Exactly!
This matter is before this Court sua sponte. The Court was contacted regarding an issue in a continuing deposition of Mr. Halmos taking place on January 26, 2011. The issue had to do with a refusal on the part of plaintiff( s) to produce a document looked at by Mr. Halmos during the course of that deposition (see 6 et. al of the deposition).Ok, let's break this down.
This Court instructed plaintiffs to produce that document for the Court to review in camera and to produce the transcript of the pertinent part of the deposition. This was done. The Court has now reviewed both and finds there is nothing of evidentiary value, or discovery value in the document withheld, it's not really a summary, and at best it might be said to be some sort of index to other documents ... and it takes a little stretching to say that.
What that response does not address, however, is that plaintiffs, themselves, reinforced that understanding...after the hearing! . . . . Apparently the Court was not the only one besides the defendant that believed there were only two issues remaining! This Court is completely unable to reconcile what happened prior to and including plaintiffs' only filing of August 27, 2010, with the position plaintiffs now attempt to take before this Court. It is, quite simply, astonishing!Yes, I agree, this whole case is astonishing.
5 Plaintiffs shall execute same without any additions, corrections, deletions or extraneous markings of any kind (ed. note -- how about a smiley face?) and return same to defendant within five (5) days of receipt of same. A return of the release with any of these 'changes' shall be deemed by the Court to be no return at all.
6. Based on a finding of Contempt, a fine of $5000, per day, will be imposed for every day after the five (5) days said receipt is not returned, properly executed.
This Court's Order puts Plaintiffs between a rock and a hard place -- sign the settlement agreement, potentially relinquishing Plaintiffs' rights on appeal, or suffer "$5000/day" in fines and reserves jurisdiction for yet more fines as the price for exercising one's constitutional rights to review an order of a judge.Well, I guess if you put it that way.....
