Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Magistrate Judge Brown Has Another Interesting Case!

Judge Brown Has Another Case                                                              

Longtime readers know I am a great fan of Magistrate Judge Brown so I'm pleased to see he's got more on his plate than toe-tapping footsie follies.

For example, here he is presiding over one of the most painful episodes in all litigation -- a fight over where to hold a mediation.

That mind-numbing dispute is almost as idiotic as fighting over the location of a deposition, but possesses a bit more irony given that the dispute is over where to meet to try to resolve the underlying dispute.

Anyways, Judge B handles it as only he can:
Rarely, if ever, in the Court's thirty-eight plus years of experience in the Judeo/Legal system has the court seen "so much about so little". Motley Rice does not want to attend mediation at the Podhurst offices. The reasons for same are, to be kind, unclear. This is a mediation - not a trial...the Podhurst employees will not be jurors deciding this matter. Motley Rice can bring an electronics expert to check the "break-out room" Podhurst offers to be used, so as to make sure it isn't bugged.

The Podhurst firm doesn't want to go to Plantation - it is too inconvenient. The Podhurst firm litigates all over the country .. .indeed all over the world ... but Plantation is too inconvenient. Apparently there are no direct flights from Miami to Plantation. Podhurst's position is bolstered, in part, by the allegation that "other interested Parties ... have indicated an intent to attend the mediation ... " (page 3 of the response). "Edward Montoya, whose work with Motley Rice is the subject of this lien, needs to attend the mediation. Counsel for some of the Defendants involved... have also indicated that they would attend the mediation ... ". (ld.) Apparently someone needs to point out that mediation is NOT a public proceeding. See Local Rule 16(g)(2) ... and while on the subject of actually citing law, the Court notes that neither party cited any as regards the location of the mediation ... probably because it's more a matter of professionalism than adversarial legality.
Thanks to the loyal tipster who forwarded this along -- your No-Prize is in the mail!

I don't say this often, but read the whole thing.

15 comments:

  1. I don't want to look this case up for fear that I might lose all respect for the lawyers litigating this nonsense. This is why people hate lawyers. This is why litigation is so expensive that civil justice is beyond the reach of ordinary people. This is disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice Judeo-Legal system you got there. Wouldn't want to see anything happen to it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Document *484*! That's a lot of documents. Impressive!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good to know that Judge Brown has no interest in ever becoming a District Judge

    ReplyDelete
  5. How could you be sure Motley's debugging expert is not a Podhurst double agent?

    ReplyDelete
  6. That opinion ought to be Judeo Illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Above the Law picked up your post.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hilarious stuff! I can't imagine any other Mag. handling this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There's a judge I've appeared before who often requires lawyers to meet and confer, in the courthouse jury room, in person, for three hours before hearings to avoid having to have hearings on stupid crap like this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Podhurt's offices are very tastefully decorated and they have nice china. That may not be teh case with Mottley Rice

    ReplyDelete
  11. There is a hearing today on this non-sense. 11am if anyone cares to pop in.

    ReplyDelete
  12. vxulyimxy, xrumer guide , ePjBsAV.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I really enjoy what you had to say. Keep going because you definitely bring a new voice to this subject. Can't wait to see more of this from you.

    ReplyDelete