Phil Parrish Strikes Back!

 Appellee's Motion for Rehearing en Banc


The Brickell Honda motion for rehearing en banc has arrived!

The Brickell Honda motion for rehearing en banc has arrived!

The Brickell Honda motion for rehearing en banc has arrived!

(I get excited by things like this.)

Notably, if Phil's brief is to be believed, the bizarre issue of class counsel's inability to fund the litigation was raised sua sponte by the Court, and was not identified as error by the Appellant or even mentioned in the briefs.

Isn't there some sort of appellate rule about that kind of thing?

3d DCA Watch -- New Trial Granted! (Hmm, Did I Forget Something?)

 Well la dee dah!

I guess you Fancy Pants appellate judges can issue content-free PCAs all day and night, but God forbid my new trial order lacks the specificity Your Highness demands:

Elena Casines appeals from the trial court’s May 12, 2010, “Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for New Trial.” Because the order does not contain specific grounds, we relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for sixty days for entry of an order specifying the grounds upon which the trial court relied to grant a new trial.

Question -- could you be more specific?

Seriously, what specificity is the Court looking for, and can some guidance be provided for future cases in which this situation may arise?

You know, precedent and all that.

Miami Automotive Retail v. Baldwin:

Specific oral misrepresentations usually make tough class certification cases.

Ok, and I agree.

But Phil Parrish needs to establish a record that he can fund the litigation?

Now that's just plain odd.