Judge Stettin Hits Levinson Jewelers With Subpoena

levinsonssubpoena

This is interesting.

So it looks like the first deposition that Judge Stettin has scheduled in the RRA bankruptcy is none other than Levinson Jewelers.

The Rule 2004 examination is set for 12/21 (will probably change) but I found the duces tecum to be intriguing:

1. All invoices and all other related documents reflecting jewelry purchased by (i) Scott Rothstein, (ii) Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, (iii) Kim Rothstein, (iv) any RRA Entity.

For purposes of this category, we seek documents that identify the name of the purchaser, a detailed description of the item purchased, the amount paid for the item and the method of payment which includes copies of checks or credit card slips.

2. All general ledger account entries that list debits and credits for jewelry purchased by any of the foregoing persons or entities listed above.

3. All agreements of any nature between Levinsons and any of the foregoing persons or entities listed above.

4. All e-mails, written memorandum or correspondence exchanged between Levinsons and any of the foregoing persons or entities listed above.

5. All titles to boats owned by Levinsons, Mark or Robin Levinson, or a business entity owned by them directly or indirectly.

6. All checks payable by Levinsons, Mark or Robin Levinson or any business entity owned by them directly or indirectly, paid to (i) Scott Rothstein, (ii) Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler or (iii) any RRA Entity.

I'm sure this means nothing, why should anyone worry?

Rule 8(a) Hates You For Your Freedoms.

So I was reading my WSJ this morning and, in addition to a nice remembrance of DUI attorney Richard Essen, came across this letter from Senator Specter:

William McGurn raises a false alarm that terrorists will flock to sue federal law-enforcement officials if my bill, the Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009, were enacted into law ("Terror by Trial Lawyer," Main Street, Dec. 1). Mr. McGurn's argument is so off-base that, during a hearing last Wednesday on the bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee, not a single senator—Republican or Democrat—alluded to, let alone advanced, it.

Under the Congressionally approved Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted in 1938, a complaint need only include a "short and plain statement" showing the plaintiff's entitlement to relief. Two recent decisions of the Supreme Court upset the longstanding interpretations of that rule and, in doing so, bypassed Congress, which by statute must approve any changes to the Federal Rules. Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, (2007) requires not only that a complaint include specific facts—facts usually in the hands of defendants—but also that it appear "plausible." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, (2009) took Twombly a step further by calling upon judges to indulge their subjective judgment when evaluating a complaint's plausibility. My bill would do no more than restore the pleading standard that prevailed before Twombly and Iqbal.

No one can seriously claim that, before the Supreme Court raised the pleading bar in Twombly and Iqbal, federal litigation threatened national security. For decades government officials have enjoyed various forms of immunity from damages suits. As Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out in his dissent in Iqbal, moreover, the "law . . . provides trial courts . . . with legal weapons" other than heightened pleading requirements, such as tight controls on pre-trial discovery, "designed to prevent unwarranted interference" with government functions when government officials are subject to suit. If the evidence were to show that a small class of suits against government officials might threaten national security, then Congress or the Court could impose a heightened pleading requirement in that small class of cases. No such evidence was provided to the Judiciary Committee at Wednesday's hearing because there is none to provide.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D., Pa.)

Notice pleading a threat to national security?

Seriously, Rule 8(a) represents a threat to our freedoms?

That's a new one.

Perhaps we should indefinitely detain Rule 8(a) without charges and throw it in Gitmo, to be subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques endorsed by 9th Circuit Judge Jay Bybee.

(Boy we got pretty screwed up there for a while.)

Who Is This Mystery Woman?

Photographed unloading things from the Princess Kimberly yacht.

In other Rothstein news, you can read about Scott's new digs here.

Oh yeah -- I went back in the Wayback machine to RRA's old website -- for research of course.

It's a fun timekiller.

Wish me luck in court, kidzzzzzzz!

The Six Million Dollar Man?

Now way, and there's a perfectly good explanation:

"Despite disclosures by the bankruptcy trustee, at no time did my client make anywhere near $6 million,'' Lehr said.

Lehr declined to specify the exact salary, but said it's likely closer to the figure the court record cited for this year.

"When Rosenfeldt questionned earnings on his tax statements, he was told by Rothstein that this was phantom income through profits the firm was making buying and selling businesses with a hedge fund,'' Lehr said. "It is my understanding that all taxes were paid.''

Let me make sure I have this right -- "phantom income through profits that the firm was making buying and selling businesses with a hedge fund."

Dear lawyers of South Florida, many of whom are equity partners in a law practice -- WTF???

Can someone explain that or is the Ambien kicking in again?

Judge Moreno Awards Fee Enhancement in MBC Receivership

Remember Judge Moreno's reaction to the requested $11 million MBC fee enhancement request?

It almost caused a judicial heart attack:

“I needed a defibrillator,” he joked. “We’re talking about a lot of money.”

Well the judge must have had a nice herbal tea which settled his nerves, because on Friday he granted most of the request:

In this case, the uniqueness and complexity of the issues required lawyers with substantial skill, expertise, and tenacity, and it is undisputed that the lawyers' excellent representation enhanced the asset pool of funds to be distributed. Under these facts, these great lawyers did make a difference, and they should be compensated at a rate higher than $2 18 or even $264 per hour.

On the other hand, as the Receiver concedes, the Court wrote in WaIco Investments, Inc. v. Thenen, 975 F. Supp. 1468,1472 (S.D. Fla. 1997), that "the presence of a consistently paying client for four years, even at a reduced hourly rate, would warm the heart, let alone the pocketbook, of even the most successful securities litigator." Therefore, the Court must consider the good results obtained as a result of the attorneys' great work, but at a rate less than the $550 to $765 being paid by clients in the free market in South Florida.

Balancing these factors, the Court believes that $450 per hour is a reasonable rate in this case in the Southern District of Florida. At $450 per hour, the total compensation for 18,740 hours should be $8,433,000. The Receiver's motion states that the Receiver's lawyers have already been paid $3,876,081. Thus, the Receiver's lawyers shall be entitled to an additional award of $4,556,919 for its work through April 2009. Moreover, because the 18,740 hours worked by the law firms do not include work past April 2009, the Court will grant attorneys' fees for the work done after April 2009.

Seems like the right call to me.

Everything's Ok!

Wow, what a weekend.

Lots of quotes to chew on:

"I don't know."

That's prosecutor Richard Scruggs, under questioning before Judge Butchko on his handling of the Pastor Smith case we wrote about last week. (The Judge suppressed two tape recordings, ruled that the conduct was "unprofessional" and even referenced Bill Clinton!)

“I don’t think he made us all look bad. I think he made lawyers wearing $5,000 suits and driving $500,000 cars look bad,” said David Markus, a Miami criminal defense attorney.

Ouch. Inestimable blogger extraordinare David Markus on you know who.

"People are going to do what they're going to do.''

Stu Rosenfeldt on the impending civil suits.

"Guess what? I'd like to make that."

Marc Nurik, on his client's alleged 2008 compensation of $35 million.

The house it leaks it needs a new top
When it rains it wets everything we got
The chimney fell down just the other day
But we're still a livin' so everything's okay.

Hank Williams Sr. as Luke the Drifter.

Welcome to Monday!

SFL Friday -- It's All in the Feet.

I'm too tired, grumpy and/or mentally fried to put together a Friday wrap up, so you kids are on your own.

Alright, you talked me out of it.

Congrats to the DBR's Most Effective Lawyers and finalists. You can see the results here.

What else?

I wanted to make sure everybody marked their calendars for January 9, when there will be a unique jazz event in honor of Steve Chaykin and his fellowship at UM:

On Saturday evening, January 9, 2010, a Reception and Concert by Grammy Nominated Jazz and Blues Artist Marcia Ball, will be held at the Gusman Concert Hall, on the University of Miami Campus. All the proceeds will benefit the Steven E. Chaykin Fellowship at the Center for Ethics and Public Service, at the University of Miami School of Law.

More information about this event can be found on the web at www.chaykinfellowship.com or by calling Susan at (305) 374-7771.

Be a mensch and do something special for someone special, and enjoy yourself at the same time. Simple, right?

But then Steve always did make it look easy.

Well I'm out of here, hoping to get in a few waves before the winds pick up.

I've got a few things on my plate for this weekend -- a quick trip to Lake Worth, a long overdue pedicure, and trying to understand the appeal of a certain look.

It's all part of what makes life so mysterious, so weird, so challenging, so grand.

Have a great weekend everyone!