Friday, January 21, 2011

I Get Paid By the Exclamation Point!

Well, I'm sure sometimes it must seem that way.

But they certainly have their uses.

For example, here's an excerpt from a sanctions order in a case that, if you read this blog, you may have heard me mention once or twice.....
What that response does not address, however, is that plaintiffs, themselves, reinforced that understanding...after the hearing! . . . . Apparently the Court was not the only one besides the defendant that believed there were only two issues remaining!  This Court is completely unable to reconcile what happened prior to and including plaintiffs' only filing of August 27, 2010, with the position plaintiffs now attempt to take before this Court.  It is, quite simply, astonishing!
Yes, I agree, this whole case is astonishing.

The Court then requires plaintiffs, over the threat of a $5k a day penalty, to sign the disputed settlement agreement:
5  Plaintiffs shall execute same without any additions, corrections, deletions or extraneous markings of any kind (ed. note -- how about a smiley face?) and return same to defendant within five (5) days of receipt of same.  A return of the release with any of these 'changes' shall be deemed by the Court to be no return at all.

6. Based on a finding of Contempt, a fine of $5000, per day, will be imposed for every day after the five (5) days said receipt is not returned, properly executed.

Question -- what is the point of compelling an actual, physical signature -- stray mark-less and properly executed (whatever that means) to a settlement agreement?

Wouldn't it be sufficient for the Court to simply find that the parties reached an enforceable agreement and order compliance therewith?  What does the forced signature/properly executed/no stray marks add?

Oh well, that's why I just write up these stupid blog posts.

Plaintiffs' request for stay is equally amusing:
This Court's Order puts Plaintiffs between a rock and a hard place -- sign the settlement agreement, potentially relinquishing Plaintiffs' rights on appeal, or suffer "$5000/day" in fines and reserves jurisdiction for yet more fines as the price for exercising one's constitutional rights to review an order of a judge.
Well, I guess if you put it that way.....


Rumpole said...

where's the standard Friday picture of the hot babe? Can't officially start my weekend until I see it. Get it up (so to speak)

GB said...

hard to admit, but for once rumpole has weighed in with something that matters

Anonymous said...

SFL: your on to something. ordering petey halmos to sign the thing under penalty of $5k per day provides him with a duress defense. judges deem attorney settlement agreements "final" all the time without client execution.

Sara said...

Very useful piece of writing, much thanks for your post.