Friday, March 26, 2010

Sanctioned Rule 11 Lawyers File Motion for Reconsideration.

Rule Reconsideration

It appears there's been an update in the case where Judge Seitz imposed Rule 11 sanctions -- the lawyers have filed a motion for reconsideration.

They basically argue that Judge Seitz made a mistake:
Plaintiffs respectfully clarify an important matter which they hope will demonstrate why this Court should reconsider its prior Order: NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LIMITED’s (“NCL”) conviction resulted from criminal law enforcement by the U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service (“CGIS”), not the civil transportation safety investigation of the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”). The Court’s Order (and the Sanctions Order, D.E. 229) appears founded upon the Plaintiffs’ knowledge of the NTSB’s safety investigation well before both the settlement of the Plaintiffs’ claims and NCL’s conviction. However, the NTSB’s investigation did not lead to NCL’s conviction;1 rather, it was the CGIS’ investigation and the enforcement of U.S. criminal law that resulted in NCL’s conviction.
They then argue that this fundamental mistake led to an erroneous ruling:
Plaintiffs submit that the above Clarification as to which investigation led to NCL’s criminal conviction and, further, the timing of the Plaintiffs learning of the CGIS’ investigation shows neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants intended for the releases to settle the criminal liability that resulted from the CGIS’ investigation.

13. Given this Clarification, the Court should reevaluate the Plaintiffs’ preliminary evidentiary allegations, which show: i) the Plaintiffs lacked knowledge of the CGIS criminal investigation when they settled their cases and signed the releases, and ii) there was an actionable misrepresentation by NCL in concealing the CGIS criminal investigation and affirmatively calling the explosion an accident. Based on this reevaluation, the Court should then determine whether to allow amendment or supplementation. This should yield the result of allowing amendment or supplementation. The undisclosed criminal activity was not capable of being released, as it was completely outside the parties’ intention to do so.
Meanwhile, the defense attorneys have submitted bills for $52k in fees and $2k in costs ------ just dealing with the Omnibus Motion -- which is being contested as excessive and unjustified.



Shoot The Lawyers said...

Outrageous. Ten times over. $52k to respond to an omnibus motion? Such a motion is almost per se sanctionable. Let's see. $52,000/$200 hr = 260 hours or some slight variation. That is five weeks spent responding to some nonsense motion. I would love to be the judge on this one and have someone tell me to my face that they labored for that long on one motion. I would also like to see their other billable hours for the same time period. Some lawyers don't know when to shut up. Just because you win a battle does not give you the right to rape and pillage.

Anonymous said...

Glennzilla demolishes Cass Sunstein

Anonymous said...

It's not an outrageous amount when you consider the complex history of this case, and the need to respond to Toyne's b.s. motion by creating a complete record. Btw, if you read the billing statements you would have seen that Curtis Mase is getting $190/hr. as a partner, and his associate is getting something like $150/hr. So, it could have been a lot worse.

Anonymous said...

I'm confused. These two clowns hired a lawyer to fight the fee petition but only challenged the amount of the fees by NCLs lawyers? Shouldn't they have also questioned the Judge's ruling of sanctions??? The motion they filed to clarify doesn't address the judges points. Guess being stupid and hiring stupid lawyers is the reason this judge sanctioned them. FAIL!