3d DCA Watch -- So Let It Be Written, So Let It Be Done Edition

Hi folks, it's yet another joyous Pesach and SFL intends to cut out early and enjoy the bitter herbs, the honey, and the haroset smeared lovingly all over something truly wonderful.

After that I may even go have a nice Seder!

But alas, our resplendently robed judicial chosen ones have been busy, swilling their coffee and sharpening their pens, and today they have released their written messages to the world, in the form of "opinions," and so let us begin our journey through that topsy-turvy world that we call 3d DCA Watch:

BDO Seidman v. Banco Espirito:

Is this case still going on?

Appellant BDO Seidman, LLP, has filed a motion for leave to file an appendix under seal. The appendix is filed in support of a motion BDO Seidman has filed in this court relating to a supersedeas bond.

Upon inspection, the appendix consists of numerous obviously public items, such as the verdict form, final judgment, civil supresedeas bonds, pleadings, and hearing transcripts.

Hey, have you read that stuff -- seal it!

Lawrence v. Peyton:

Judge Shepherd lectures the parties on not misusing the court system to fight over their six-year-old son.

Seriously.

Safeway Premium v. Sosa:

Oy. Another 3d DCA class cert opinion. Let me close my eyes and try to predict the outcome:

Reversed!

Am I right?

Oh, and Judge Shepherd and Judge Gersten get into a little catfight too.

Judge Shepherd thinks a insurance company that has a business practice to always charge $20 bucks for every six-month renewal, no matter the circumstances, and then sort it out later as to whether that $20 bucks should be returned (because under Florida law you cannot charge it more than once every 12 months), is not engaged in a "knowing" practice that violates the statute.

Judge Gersten disagrees, employing something that in the old mimeograph and carbon paper days we called "common sense":

When multiplied by several thousand applicants, Safeway’s method allows Safeway to use considerable sums of money for considerable periods of time. This practice clearly violates the statute. Thus, Safeway’s general intent and common practice are at issue, and there is no need for a case-by-case factual determination of each plaintiff’s circumstances. The trier of fact here would be faced with a single question on liability: Did Safeway knowingly and systematically charge an improper fee?

Hmm, I wonder what type of legal vehicle would be necessary to get this company to stop taking twenty bucks every single time before determining whether or not they have collected it more than once a year in violation of the statute?

It's on the tip of my tongue, what's it called again?

Oh hail, just don't ask a few of our appellate judges, they've never heard of it either.

Happy Pesach everyone!