Friday, January 20, 2017

Supper's Ready!

Hi kids this is what I'm watching today, how about you?


Wednesday, January 18, 2017

3d DCA Watch -- Yes That Idiot Will Be Our President Soon!

Sheesh I have to stop fixating on this inauguration.

Let's do this kiddos:

This seems like a first-world problem, what do you all think?
The Village is a coastal Florida municipality within whose boundaries exists Indian Creek Island, on which the gated, private Indian Creek Country Club [“Club”] is located.  The Club operates a golf course, clubhouse, docks and tennis courts for its members.  The Island also has 41 single family homes, and is connected to the mainland Village by a public road and bridge with guardhouse, although the Island is entirely private.  The Club is accessed by private road; most of the Club’s 300 members live elsewhere.  The Village has its own land and marine police force to provide 24/7 law enforcement and traffic services to Village residents and also provides general law enforcement and police assistance to the Club and Village residents on the Island.  The Club pays approximately $34,000 in ad valorem taxes to the Village to cover the annual cost of these services. 
Ok this is not helping, in fact I already hate everything about this case, we better move on.

Here's another Judge Shepherd opinion:
The dispositive question appears to be whether the undisputed facts of this case support the judgment of the trial court that the homeowners are entitled to indemnity under the “ensuing loss” provision of a homeowners’ insurance policy for the cost of tearing up and replacing a portion of the foundation or slab on which their home sits, necessary to reach and replace a sanitary drain line, the repair and replacement of which is not covered under the policy.  The trial court found coverage to exist under this provision of the policy.  We find the decision of the trial court was premature.
Ok we better move on.

Oh wait -- we can't yet.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Why Do People Do This?

Someone will have to explain why these things happen:
On the day in question, the Webbs were served 22 alcoholic beverages in a 12-hour span, from before noon to near midnight. Id. ¶¶ 12 – 13, 24; Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Facts ¶¶ 17, 66, ECF No. 79 (“Pl.’s Facts”). Most of these drinks were Long Island Iced Teas, each of which contains 2.5 ounces of alcohol. Pl.’s Facts ¶ 69. Plaintiff ordered and signed for drinks throughout the day for both herself and Decedent, save for when the Webbs both ordered drinks at the casino bar. See Def.’s Facts ¶¶ 14 – 17, 22, 24 – 26. The two attended dinner at 9:30 p.m., where Decedent, who was inebriated, did not slur his words or stumble. Def.’s Facts ¶ 20; Pl.’s Facts ¶ 20. But less than an hour later at the casino bar, Decedent fell off his barstool after a round of drinks. Def.’s Facts ¶ 23; Pl.’s Facts ¶ 75. Parties dispute the reason for Decedent’s fall, and whether the bartender acted appropriately after the fall or was warned to cease serving Decedent drinks. At 11:43 p.m., roughly an hour after the fall, Plaintiff signed off on what would be a final round of drinks for herself and Decedent. Def.’s Facts ¶ 25.
After midnight, Plaintiff and the Howes went to the ship’s nightclub as Decedent stayed behind to finish his cigarette. Id. ¶ 30. Decedent never arrived at the nightclub, however. See id. ¶¶ 30 – 36. Instead, he entered his cabin alone at 12:28 a.m., and ultimately stepped out onto the cabin balcony. Id. ¶ 37 – 38. Around 1:00 a.m., Decedent fell off the balcony onto the lower deck, resulting in his death. Def.’s Facts ¶ 41; Pl.’s Facts ¶ 64. Parties dispute Decedent’s blood alcohol content at the time of his death, and Plaintiff’s and the Howes’ level of concern for Decedent’s well-being before his fall.
I'd say it's tragic but it seems worse than that in a way and utterly pointless to boot.

Judge Cooke denied sj btw.

How's my mood?

(Three days to the inauguration kiddos!)

Ahh screw it:

Friday, January 13, 2017

SFL Friday -- Embroid Me!

Could this possibly be true?
Specializing in “embroidery, garment printing, custom apparel, promotional
products, screen printing and personalized gifts at more than 300 resource centers
throughout the United States, Canada and Australia,” EmbroidMe is, according to
its website, “the world’s largest promotional products franchise.”
I love learning about entirely new things you never even knew existed -- you have to admit that's a nice perk to litigation.

In other news, this happened.

You really do learn new things every day -- happy Friday!

Miami Attorney Ramon Manuel Rodriguez Charged With Ethical Misconduct By Florida Bar

The Florida Bar's push for civility is welcomed, and judging from this article apparently the Bar has a strategy that starts with weeding out those it convicts as bad apples.

From the DBR:
The Florida Bar has brought ethics charges against Miami attorney Ramon Manuel Rodriguez, accused of knowingly filing and prosecuting a frivolous perjury case against opposing counsel at Lewis Tein.

"Respondent pursued his perjury and fraud claims against Lewis and Tein despite the fact that he knew, or should have known, that same were unsupported by competent evidence," bar counsel Jennifer Falcone wrote in the complaint.

Rodriguez filed more than 20 motions for sanctions against the Lewis Tein  attorneys—none of which were granted, according to charging documents in a related ethics case against yet another lawyer, Jose "Pepe" Herrera.

Herrera faces his own charges for alleged misconduct against the Lewis Tein lawyers. The tribe's attorney, Bernardo Roman III, faces similar charges in a pending case. He is accused of deceitful and prejudicial conduct, as well as violations of bar rules requiring truthfulness and candor.
Yikes!  This dude better hire Tannebaum.

When lawyers behave badly, we all pay.


Wednesday, January 11, 2017

3d DCA Watch -- Dear Nice Foreclosure Counsel: We Don't Mean You!

Interesting part concurrence/dissent from Judge Salter on a residential mortgage foreclosure case seemingly birthed in the bowels of hail:
In the present case, I cannot agree that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s dilatory motion to add a party.  The errors in the present case were essentially errors by counsel, not by the trial court.  The tsunami of residential foreclosures in South Florida in the aftermath of the 2008 real estate recession has been marked in many cases by assembly-line pleadings, preparation of complaints and affidavits by non-attorneys, and the neglect of cases by counsel.5  The trial courts have shown commendable diligence in moving such cases, particularly stale cases, to trial and final judgment.
But look at footnote 5:
Counsel for the parties in this appeal were not involved in such lapses or the errors reflected in the record before us.
Thanks for the clarification, judge!

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Lopsided Spencer: Rule 68 Exposed!

Here's Spencer's amicus video on Rule 68 and a few of the most powerful corporations in the history of human kind (note these super powerful mega corps are "Pre-T" -- Trump's moving a lot of money around in the next four years).

Monday, January 9, 2017

All Hail Brian Toth!

The kid done good:
The Law Review would like to congratulate UMLR Alumni Advisory Board member Brian W. Toth on his recent promotion to Partner at Holland & Knight. Brian was a member of UMLR from 2006 to 2008 and held the position of Executive Editor from 2007 to 2008. He graduated from the Law School in 2008 magna cum laude and was elected to the Order of the Coif. After graduation, Brian clerked for the Honorable Cecilia M. Altonaga at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. He has since worked at Holland & Knight in the firm’s Litigation Section.
Sure sure, but has he really accomplished anything with his life?


Friday, January 6, 2017

By Popular Demand I Give You......PROCAPS!!!

Did this crappy little blog help make this case famous?

Well that would be immodest.

Truly the credit goes to the fine lawyers who battled each other for years, racking up millions in fees, hundreds of docket entries, nearly continuous all-day hearings and homework assignments before our favorite Magistrate Judge, and a crazy little thing called love:
Accordingly, we affirm.  
The collateral litigation over costs, fees etc. should keep this gravy train running for a few years longer -- who's in on the over/under?

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Welcome to the Layer Cake!

This was where I was starting to go before GB beat me to the punch with the SD FL US Attorney rumors.

I like his post much better.