More Judicial Departures; More Coming?

Anyone who knows our judges know they are distressed over antics in Tally, openly griping (ok, more so than usual) and are considering their options.

So it is with some sadness that confirmation arrives of 3d DCA Judge David Gersten's departure as well as Circuit Judge Mary Barzee Flores.

I really like this quote from Judge B:

“The enthusiasm among some in Tallahassee to slash spending on our court system, coupled with the staggering volume of new case filings driven by current economic conditions, poses a grave threat to our society.”

Big losses for justice in South Florida, but we thank them for their service and wish them the very best and great success in private practice. 

Three guesses on who's next?

"All Pending Motions DENIED As Moot" Merely Scrivener's Error!

 Stearns Weaver is on a roll.

In the wake of Judge Ungaro's BankAtlantic order comes this order from Judge Lenard, upholding sanctions awarded to Stearns Weaver for discovery violations in a case that was otherwise dismissed.

I found this part interesting:

Nor did this Court’s Order Dismissing Case moot the pending Motion for Sanctions.  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 motions for sanctions are collateral to the original proceeding and therefore may be considered after the action is no longer pending. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990); Montgomery & Larmoyeux by Montgomery v. Philip Morris, Inc., 19 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1335 (S.D. Fla. 1998) (Gold, J.) (district court may award attorney’s fees following remand in a separate order). The phrase “all pending motions are DENIED as moot,” as written in the Court’s form Order of Dismissal, is merely a scrivener’s error that should not preclude Defendants from continuing to exercise their prerogative to move for sanctions.

I'm always fascinated by things like this.

I agree Rule 11 sanctions are collateral and can be considered after the action is concluded, but what to do with the form order and the boilerplate language denying all pending motions as moot?

Is it sufficient to dismissively term it a "form Order" and "merely a scrivener's error" or do the words in an Order, form or not, have their unambiguously plain effect?

And how should that analysis inform us when we deal with other boilerplate language in other form documents that purport to have legal consequences?

Finally, if the words "DENIED as moot" are of no legal significance, then why are those words always there in the first place?

I hate scriveners!

We're Number One!

At mortgage fraud.

You didn't think I would say education, arts, charity, or civic responsibility did you?

Jonathan Heller says this is good for business not surprising:

Jonathan Heller, a Miami defense lawyer defending a client who he believes was a victim of mortgage fraud, said he is not surprised by South Florida's ranking.

``When you have mortgage brokers who are unsavory, who are fueled by irresponsible lenders, it's like the perfect storm,'' he said.

But that's why we love it here!

What else?

Congrats to Stearns Weaver partner David Pollack who just bought a nice Grove condo.

Ahh screw this.

You know what, it's too nice out for me to sit here and pretend to work.

I think I'll make an obligatory appearance, glad hand for a while, and like a nice Jewish goy go see the Vatican Splendors up in Fort Lauderdale, then walk along the river and smoke a big fat cigar.

You guys are on your own for a while.