Wednesday, August 17, 2011

3d DCA Watch -- May the Schwartz Be With You!

Oh happy day, the bunker denizens have a new occupant, which of course means it's time to polish the used equipment in the mechanical room/gym, retighten the bolts so the sinks are securely fastened to the walls, and wax down the concrete -- it's party time!

 Oops!  That's the Bilzen shot put lunch club, sorry.

Here's the right image:


It's just some friendly locals enjoying a bonfire -- gotta love those old-fashioned values, I always say.

Ok, seriously now, here's the correct photograph of the bunker party planning committee:

You know what, I'm gonna quit while I'm ahead -- let's get right to the written utterances:

Robles-Martinez v. Diaz, Reus:

Ahh, what a heartwarming bedtime story:
Appellee law firm Diaz, Reus sued its client, Cesar Lindo Hoyos, for unpaid fees.
How could something like that go wrong?

Ramirez v. United Auto:

Dear United Auto, you are about to receive Maximum Schwartz:
The insurance company makes no defense, as it could not, of the merits of the order under review. Indeed, its lawyer has what some may call the candor∗ to agree that
[i]f [the insured’s attorney] had contacted undersigned prior to filing his petition in this Court, Respondent would likely have agreed to a motion for rehearing in the circuit court because the denial of his appellate attorney’s fees was legally erroneous.
Rather than confessing error, however, as this concession would seem to require, see Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 571-73 (Fla. 2005), United has what some may call the courage* to contend that, having sought judicial, rather than telephonic relief, by filing this completely appropriate petition, the plaintiff is out of luck. This is because, it says, the case does not meet the requirements for second tier review most recently articulated by Custer Medical Center v. United Automobile Insurance Co., 62 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 2010).
To put it mildly, we disagree.
Here is Judge Schwartz' starred footnote:
∗ The reader, if any, is invited to substitute her own preferred equivalent expression. See, e.g., Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 509 n.14 (Fla. 2006) (chutzpah); Zabrani v. Riveron, 495 So. 2d 1195, 1197 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (same); Price v. Gray's Guard Service, Inc., 298 So. 2d 461, 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (intestinal fortitude).
Oooh, oooh, can I play?

Cajones?  S#^t-for-brains?  Extraordinarily-poor-legal-judgment?

Come on kids, you can play too!


Anonymous said...

"The reader, if any . . . ." Lol. I love honesty.

Anonymous said...

Do they get fees for the appeal now?

Anonymous said...

Funniest 3d DCA Watch Ever!

Hey, when you don't pay that firm's bill do you get punched in the face?

Anonymous said...

Ditto 2:01

Anonymous said...

I've begun using "legal douchebaggery."

Anonymous said...

Opinion won't deter United lawyers. They will be making the same arguments tomorrow.

Godwhacker said...

I like the guy in the center. But the one on the far right is a close second. Swlip, is that you?

vaginas said...

Oh my god, there's a lot of helpful info above!

Zackary said...

So, I don't actually believe this will work.
dress styles | Lake Tahoe map | medicare card