Magistrate Judge Torres Explains the Legal Caste System!

This is a great R&R from Judge Torres awarding fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 to H&K in defending an "objectively unreasonable" copyright suit.

There are so many interesting things in this order I don't know where to begin.

Let's start with the fact that it took 19(!) H&K lawyers in four cities (Miami, Atlanta, DC, and Boston) to handle an objectively unreasonable lawsuit.

Then there's the whole billing rate problem:

To be fair, the record shows that various Florida lawyers were indeed involved and billed extensively on the file, including highly experienced and respected lawyers like Sandy Bohrer and Chris Bellows, who are seeking even higher rates. But that then leads to the question whether their billable rates are necessary to attract competent counsel in this community to represent Coca-Cola. Clearly they are not.

Judge Torres continues by way of analogy:

In other words, one can drive from point A to point B in a Ferrari, a BMW, or a Ford Fusion. Which car one chooses is ordinarily a matter of personal style coupled with financial freedom. The successful personal injury or criminal defense lawyer may choose the Ferrari. The average corporate defense lawyer will wisely choose the BMW. But a successful attorney fee applicant can only choose the Ford Fusion. It is quite reliable, consistent, and effective for the task at hand, and will not break the bank. And because of that only the cost of a Ford Fusion is compensable under an attorneys’ fee statute based on the American Rule that governs federal litigation.

A few questions:

1)  Why is the successful PI and criminal defense lawyer lumped together, both driving a Ferrari?

2)  What is "wise" about the average corporate defense lawyer's choice of a BMW, and don't some (many) also drive fancy sports cars or even Ferraris?

3)  This is not good publicity for Ford Fusions.

The Judge is not done:

That is why premium-rate lawyers who work at large high-powered law firms like H&K exist. They are lawyers who graduated from the best law schools like Georgetown, at the top of their classes at schools like Columbia or the University of Miami, who clerked for distinguished federal judges, who work night and day, 365 days a year, in the interest of that corporate client that demands perfection 100 percent of the time. These lawyers are (in very rare cases) the Ferraris and (in most cases) the BMWs of their profession who would never market themselves as merely “competent” or “average” or “reasonably priced.” These lawyers market premium legal service, which carries with it premium hourly rates.

Hmm, that's an awful lot of assumptions in one paragraph.

Georgetown, heh?

Hey, I know a Magistrate Judge who graduated from there!

BTW, I'm sure Coke's shareholders are happy they hired a firm who put 19 lawyers from around the country (plus another firm out of LA) on a case that had absolutely no merit whatsoever.

Oh well, $425 an hour's not bad for the ham-and-schleppers stuck driving around the South Florida legal community in their crappy Ford Fusions.

Beats the Ford Pinto, I guess.

What Do You Think of Magistrate Judge Torres?

You can vote by text message here.

Oops, that is for American Idol -- sorry, my bad.

I miss you Pia!

Actually, you can find evaluation forms and more details on Judge Torres' reappointment process here.

(My guess is the Judge will be -- and should be -- a lock.)

Votes comments are due no later than May 2, 2011.

11th Circuit Reverses Magistrate Judge Torres and Uses Exclamation Point!

We've already been through the use of exclamation points in blog posts, in orders, and much delight has been had along the way.

Now, suddenly, out of nowhere, the 11th Circuit has decided to weigh in on the exclamation point debate in a big big way -- oh hail, I'll let the 11th explain it:

Jaguar failed to plead the administrative exemption as an affirmative defense in its Answer. In the fourteen months between the filing of its Answer and the commencement of trial, Jaguar never moved to amend its Answer to include the administrative exemption. Jaguar also did not raise the issue of the administrative exemption during discovery. The only time Jaguar raised the issue prior to trial was by inserting it in one line of the Joint Pretrial Stipulation and in the proposed Joint Jury Instructions, to which Diaz objected. Jaguar did not raise the issue during the pretrial conference and the district court did not include the issue in its Omnibus Order Following Pretrial Conference. If ever there were a classic case of waiver, this is it!

You don't say!!

(You can check out the docket below here).

"I Said Good Day, Sir!"

Dont Waste My Time Again

Do any of you come here for legal analysis and opinion?

Judging from your search terms, let's leave that question unanswered.

But there are a dogged few, a ragtag bunch of judges, judicial staff, ham-and-schleppers and BigFirmers who -- in between copious sessions browsing for cat piano mashups and free x-rated content (sometimes simultaneously) -- actually come here to learn something.

So here's a lesson -- don't waste the Court's time raising new arguments you should have thought about the first time.

For example, if you're the plaintiff and you've just been hit by defendants for a big fee award under an offer of judgment theory, and the Court has "thoroughly and painstakingly" reviewed your arguments (not to pat oneself on the back), don't go back and try to argue entitlement in a motion for reconsideration you big fat dummy:

After this Court thoroughly and painstakingly reviewed the arguments raised by Plaintiff in opposition to the motion, which resulted in a material reduction of the fees and costs requested by Defendant, Plaintiff (still unsatisfied) seeks to start over and have the Court review the matter anew with arguments that could have, but were not, raised in a timely fashion in opposition to the original motion.

Oy, not good so far....

Having obtained only limited success through its original arguments in opposition to the motion for fees, Plaintiff – without any explanation or suggestion why any entitlement arguments could not have been raised earlier – simply asks that the Court exercise its discretion to reopen the matter and consider new legal theories. But the Motion presents no persuasive factual or legal basis for the Court to do so under the circumstances. To paraphrase Judge Birch, this too constitutes a second – but untimely – bite at the apple. The Court will not entertain these untimely arguments now and rests this Order entirely on that procedural basis.

 I said Good Day Sir!

I agree with this as a policy matter.

Also, why would you not raise issues regarding entitlement (the form is bad, the release is bad, not everyone named etc.) as a threshold issue?

The only wrinkle is that the area of law -- offers of judgment/proposals for settlement under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 -- is wildly, hopelessly screwed up, and has been for decades.  There are badly reasoned decisions, conflicting statutes, amendments to statutes, cases that deal with older versions of statutes, you name it.

Good thing our friends in Tallahassee are working hard on cleaning it all up!