Yes kids, it's Hump Day and what better way to spend it than by Going All the Way with the 3d DCA™ [insert additional euphemism here]:
L.B. v. The Naked Truth:
Wow, "adult retail store" security clearly needs to be improved.
Kalb v. Nack Holding:
Dear lawyer friends -- please get your motions for attorneys fees in promptly:
In this case, Nack Holding is not entitled to trial level attorney’s fees because it did not comply with the applicable requirements. The trial court’s judgment was issued on October 20, 2009, while Nack Holding’s motion for fees in this case was filed March 12, 2010. The thirty-day bright line had already expired when Nack Holding filed its motion. Further, Nack Holding incorrectly contends no motion was necessary after the judgment because it served a demand for attorney’s fees in July 2007, and the trial court reserved jurisdiction to enter additional orders. The trial court’s reservation of jurisdiction “to enter such additional orders,” does not suffice because it does not determine Nack Holding is entitled to attorney’s fees. See Lait, 2 So. 3d at 207.Oops!
Wingate v. Celebrity Cruises:
The Jay Wingate saga continues (oy).
Let's let Judge Emas explain:
Mr. Wingate was evidently unfazed by the order of criminal contempt, undaunted by the unsuccessful appeal of that order, and undeterred by the disciplinary proceedings and his ultimate disbarment. Four days after this Court issued the mandate in the first appeal, and in what appears to be a textbook example of legal chutzpah,5 Wingate filed a motion with the trial court for disbursement of costs, asserting Wingate was entitled to costs incurred in cases which had not yet been settled at the time of the contempt hearing. Once those cases were settled, amounts representing costs were deposited by the Rivkind firm with the clerk of court. The trial court denied Wingate’s motion “in light of the dishonest and contumacious conduct of . . . Wingate . . . as set out in the Contempt Order previously entered by this court,” finding Wingate was “not entitled to such relief.” This appeal followed.Note to Judge Emas -- great order, but I think "chutzpah" is now sufficiently a part of the American lexicon that a lengthy footnote explaining its origin and providing examples thereof may no longer be necessary.
I mean, they recently put "schmuck" in the title of a major film, right?
Miami Beach v. Kuoni:
Yes yes, we know Thomas Kramer has a party house available for rental on Star Island.
Rosencrantz v. Guildenstern:
Ok, that's not the actual title of this case but the literary reference was too good to pass up.