Passover Plague #7 visits the good offices of Mr. Aronfeld:
Heneni here I am!
No, seriously, I am standing right here:
On the broccoli beat, Bloomberg Law’s Josh Block finds that the word was mentioned a dozen times in the court’s opinions. There were three mentions by Chief Justice Roberts, five by Justice Ginsburg and four in the dissenting opinion.I suppose swlip will gloat about the Commerce Clause language by the Chief Justice, which is worrisome for the long term in that it echoes the dissent and does not bode well for future tests of federal power (unless it involves gay marriage or drug laws).
The most appetizing quotes are:
From Justice Ginsburg: As an example of the type of regulation he fears, the Chief Justice cites a Government mandate to purchase green vegetables. Ante, at 22–23. One could call this concern “the broccoli horrible.”
SHEPHERD, J., dissenting.Was the rest of it cut off in the uploading process?
It's the age of social media, but most lawyers aren't into it. Why is that? Perhaps it's because they're afraid--afraid of tarnishing their image by having a Facebook page. Afraid of the time and effort it takes to be online. Afraid of a negative review.Sheesh, that is a relief.
We're on Facebook. We're on Twitter. We're even on Instagram, posting pictures like nobody's business. (The truth is, we like this stuff.)
We don't get too worked up about image.
People who compete against each other in the same business or profession don’t have to dislike one another. A few years back there was even a song lyricizing about “Lawyers in Love.” But no one has ever written a song about “Car Dealers in Love,” and if this case is any indication, no one ever will. These two car dealers are bitter business rivals in overlapping markets. One of them used a software program to compete more aggressively with the other one over the internet. That program produced a multiplicity of mini-websites, a host of hard feelings, and of course litigation. This is the appellate part of that litigation.Very curious -- note how the Judge casually, unobtrusively cites the great Jackson Browne song "Lawyers in Love" without an elaborate, digressive 300-plus long footnote/citation/educational string.
People who compete against each other in the same business or profession don’t have to dislike one another. A few years back there was even a song lyricizing about “Lawyers in Love.”1 But no one has ever written a song about “Car Dealers in Love,” and if this case is any indication, no one ever will. These two car dealers are bitter business rivals in overlapping markets. One of them used a software program to compete more aggressively with the other one over the internet. That program produced a multiplicity of mini-websites, a host of hard feelings, and of course litigation. This is the appellate part of that litigation.1 -- For a musical reference to "lawyers being in love," see "Lawyers in Love," a song sung by Jackson Browne. Recorded in Los Angeles, the song was written by Jackson Browne and reached the #13 position on the U.S. music charts in the summer of 1983. http://www.allmusic.com/song/lawyers-in-love-mt0005091017 (last visited June 21, 2012). Focused on Cold War concerns and a distrust of the perceived superficial, empty values of the Reagan Era, the song contains the following lyric: "God sends his spaceships to America, the beautiful They land at six o'clock and there we are, the dutiful Eating from TV trays, tuned into to Happy Days Waiting for World War III while Jesus slaves To the mating calls of lawyers in love" http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/jackson_browne/lawyers_in_love.html (last visited June 21, 2012).
[N]ew rule 2.516 provides that all documents required or permitted to be served on another party must be served by e-mail. Under subdivision (b)(1) (Service by Electronic Mail (―e-mail‖)), upon appearing in a proceeding a lawyer must designate a primary e-mail address, and may designate up to two secondary e-mail addresses, for receiving service. Thereafter, service on the lawyer must be made by e-mail. The rule does permit several limited exceptions to this requirement. A lawyer may file a motion to be excused from e-mail service, demonstrating that he or she has no e-mail account and lacks access to the Internet at the lawyer’s office.Ok, I want to know what lawyer could possibly lack both an email account and internet connection?
Because Aubin failed to present any evidence demonstrating that the defective design of SG-210 Calidria caused Aubin’s harm, peritoneal mesothelioma, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Union Carbide’s motion for a directed verdict as to Aubin’s design defect claim. In addition, because the jury instructions given by the trial court were inconsistent with the law in the Third District and in effect directed the verdict in favor of Aubin, we reverse and remand for a new trial as to the warning defect claim consistent with this opinion.Interesting -- even though the plaintiff's requested special instruction was "technically accurate," the Court found it "misleading" without supplemental explanation.
A Miami office building controlled by John H. Ruiz, an attorney with his own TV program, is facing foreclosure over a $10.7 million mortgage.First off, I had totally forgotten that Rudy was now at White & Case.
First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. (NASDAQ: FCNCA) filed the foreclosure lawsuit on June 8 against 5040 Corp., which lists Ruiz as its president. His law offices and his La Ley TV operations are based in the 104,307-square-foot building at 5040 N.W. 7th Street. The nine-story building was completed in 1986. The foreclosure action also targets a neighboring 18,731-square-foot parking lot.
The building is named the Ruiz Law Centre.
Since 1979, Daniel A. Moore has painted famous football scenes involving the University of Alabama (the “University” or “Alabama”). The paintings feature realistic portrayals of the University’s uniforms, including helmets, jerseys, and crimson and white colors. Moore has reproduced his paintings as prints and calendars, as well as on mugs and other articles.This serves the guy right for venerating 'Bama, I guess.
In 2002, the University told Moore that he would need permission to depict the University’s uniforms because they are trademarks. Moore contended that he did not need permission because the uniforms were being used to realistically portray historical events. The parties could not reach a resolution, and in March 2005, the University sued Moore in the Northern District of Alabama for breach of contract, trademark infringement, and unfair competition.
“Going to attend cultural events at places like the Arsht Center is a good thing for making people feel like they’re part of a viable community, part of an exciting community,” he said. “They don’t want to just sit at home. They’re not just going to bars.’’Especially strip bars, according to recent headlines.
I support the retention of the three justices of the Supreme Court of Florida, even though I also frequently disagree with their opinions. But I am astonished at the hypocrisy of our Bar leadership in spending our Bar fees for a statewide “education program” on retention, which is, in reality, political institutional pandering. This hypocrisy takes on even greater dimensions, when it is compared to the silence of our Bar leadership in the face of the vicious, unprecedented assault on the judicial independence of the Supreme Court of the United States.I thought, particularly as a Constitutional law professor, that Obama knew better when he made that one, single remark about popular legislation etc. And he promptly walked it back.
The historic browbeating by President Obama and many members of his party, including the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is something every lawyer should protest. But not a sound can be heard from either our leadership or the many leaders of the ABA who are Florida Bar members.
Our involuntary Bar association is quick to spend our money when liberal judges are under attack — silent when conservative judges are being skewered by liberal politicians, lawyers, and operatives who want to fix an unprecedented case.
Every judge should be defended or no judge should be defended. We members should be howling angry at this hypocritical maneuvering on our dime. The money spent on voter “education” would be better spent supplementing our needy pro bono programs.
In 2009, author Mark DeMoss launched a Civility Project asking every sitting governor and member of Congress to sign a pledge of civility agreeing to three statements: “1. I will be civil in my public discourse and behavior; 2. I will be respectful of others, whether or not I agree with them; and 3. I will stand against incivility when I see it.” Amazingly, only three elected officials signed it—Sen. Joe Lieberman, Rep. Frank Wolf, and Rep. Sue Myrick.Funny thing is, I think Joe "The Weeper" Lieberman is mostly a jerk!
Atlanta-based Wargo French launched its Miami office last August, headed by former long-time Greenberg Traurig shareholder Lori Sochin. Ten associates have been hired including Simon Ferro Jr., a former Lewis Tein lawyer.Ok, sounds like a good firm and I wish them well, but what a great name -- "Wargo French" -- that's got to be a character from an old Coen Brothers movie?
The 50-lawyer firm, which also has a Los Angeles office, targeted Miami for growth based on client demand, said managing partner Joe Wargo. Wargo French is a full-service law firm focusing on complex commercial litigation, financial services litigation, labor and employment, class action litigation, creditor's rights and bankruptcy, commercial real estate, construction, general corporate and securities law, among other specialties.
The panel assigned to hear Rosenfeld’s appeal overlooked the fact that Rosenfeld’s argument for reversal was based on a provisional pretrial ruling and treated the argument as if it were addressed to the District Court’s trial ruling. The panel then concluded that the District Court erred in excluding the proffered evidence, that the error was not harmless, and that the District Court should have granted Rosenfeld a new trial. In overlooking what Rosenfeld had done, the panel failed to recognize that Rosenfeld, in basing her new trial motion on a provisional pretrial evidentiary ruling rather than an evidentiary ruling at trial, had effectively waived her argument that the District Court abused its discretion in not granting a new trial. Had the panel recognized this fact, it would have rejected Rosenfeld’s appeal out of hand.I get it Judge -- there is a difference between a pretrial and trial evidentiary ruling.
Trial lawyer Garrett Biondo is the incoming president of the Dade County Bar Association. He’s also a Miami Heat season-ticket holder who refuses to miss a big game.What grit, what determination -- Russomanno shoots, she scores!
But when it comes to Saturday’s Game 7 — arguably the biggest home affair in Heat history — he can’t be both.
At the same time the Heat and Celtics decide the Eastern Conference championship Saturday, Biondo will be about a mile south for his swearing in — at the Bar association’s black-tie gala, held at the Mandarin Oriental.
Think he’s disappointed? Imagine the 300 or so others in attendance who aren’t being recognized at the event.
Around 44 percent of workers say they’ve put on pounds at their current job, with 26 percent saying they’ve gained more than 10 pounds, per the report.Hmm, I tend to disagree.
Certain jobs, however, had a higher frequency of workers who reported gaining weight. Often those jobs are sedentary or particularly high-stress.
The jobs where people are most likely to gain weight include: travel agent, attorney, social worker, teacher, doctor and public relations professional.
“In addition, Yovonka and I are very concerned about the issue of cannibalism and the number of cases that are being reported in other states and countries, such as Alabama, Canada, Maryland, Japan and Sweden,” Allred said.A brave position, certainly, but where's the rebuttal? What lawyer plans to challenge Ms. Allred on her provocative statement?
We affirm, holding that the trial court properly entered final summary judgment in favor of appellees on appellants’ claims for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. See Faro v. Romani, 641 So. 2d 69, 71 (Fla. 1994) (holding “when an attorney withdraws from representation upon his own volition, and the contingency has not occurred, the attorney forfeits all rights to compensation.”).
We likewise affirm the trial court’s orders denying each party’s motion for sanctions pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2010), finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determinations.Hmm, sounds like that was fun.
Beach Honda argues that the Tylinskis are not entitled to attorney’s fees because the document sued upon and attached to the Complaint, the Retail Order Contract, does not contain a provision for attorney’s fees.3 The financial contract is contained in the RISC, and that contract does contain an attorney’s fee provision,4 but that is not the document upon which Beach Honda sued. Beach Honda sued only for breach of the ROC. The RISC was not admitted as an exhibit at trial. The Tylinskis’ Answer to the Complaint clearly asserts a claim for 57.105(7) fees,5 but it was based on the ROC, which does not contain an attorney’s fee provision. See Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835, 838 (Fla. 1991) (“[A] party seeking attorney’s fees pursuant to statute or contract must pleadOy.
entitlement to such fees.”). The Tylinskis prevailed in their defense against the dealership on the dealership’s suit to recover the cash down payment. We understand the Tylinskis’ argument that, but for the financial commitment reflected in the RISC, the dealership would not have allowed them to drive the caroff the lot.6 Nevertheless, the dealership sought recovery under the ROC, not the RISC; there is no contractual avenue for recovering attorney’s fees based on the ROC, and the Tylinskis did not plead any statutory basis for recovering attorney’s fees other than § 57.105(7).
We agree with our colleague who informed Beach Honda at oral argument that it was very lucky in its procedural posture in the trial court below. We would add that Beach Honda is very lucky that we are, in this case regretfully, bound by our standard of review.Hey, don't let that stop you now!
Corey does not offer sufficient substantive group characteristics. Instead, Corey attempts to identify groups based on affiliation or connection to the City, the supposed discriminator: “insiders” and “outsiders.” This vague category is inadequate because these idea-based characteristics do not allow us to separate readily people and entities into discrete groupings -- a necessary part of identifying the group that suffered the alleged discrimination. The proposed categories are too loose, too shifting to be useful to courts.This may technically be true, but does it comport with decades and decades of empirical evidence?
No objective criteria plainly fix whether a person or entity is an “insider” or an “outsider.” “Insiders” and “outsiders” do not bear immutable characteristics. Furthermore -- unlike with political parties or other longer-term voluntary group affiliations -- they do not even have to declare or register themselves as members of their respective grouping. The most one can hope for in separating persons based on such subjective criteria -- “insiders” and “outsiders” based virtually on friendship with government officials -- would be a spectrum or a fuzzy series of wholly indeterminate and overlapping groups each of which would be inadequate to qualify as identifiable for purposes of an Equal Protection Clause claim.
The 43-year-old former Steel, Hector & Davis lawyer and son of former Miami City Manager Joe Arriola changed his party affiliation when Obama ran for president. Ricky Arriola met Obama when he was an Illinois state senator and Arriola had business in Chicago. They stayed in touch.How did that happen -- the kid got rich and wildly successful and THEN turned Democrat?
The undersigned realizes that this Court has read all of the parties Motions and conducted the over Four Week Trial. However, because of the complex nature of the case and the fact that the Plaintiffs continuously try to ignore all of the parties that sued and were sued in this case and the central issues that were won by the Defendants at great expense. The undersigned is going to break down each claim and each party one by one to hopefully stop the Plaintiffs from playing the “smoke screen tactic” of litigation that has cost the Defendants Millions of Dollars in expenses and has almost put them out of business.Oy veh -- good luck with that!