Thursday, March 7, 2013

Lawyers' Hippocratic Oath?


Good ole' primum non nocere.

I think Judge Marra is suggesting it's not just for doctors:
As stated throughout this litigation, Plaintiffs have made review of this matter particularly difficult because of the summarized or co-mingled manner in which they present their arguments and their extensive use of supra and infra for cites. On more than one occasion, this has pointed to places in the record where there is mere argument without citation, or to cites that do not stand for the proposition asserted.
In a footnote he gets more specific:
Plaintiffs’ manner of presenting their case impedes decision making by forcing the Court to aimlessly search the record for relevant evidence, or the lack of evidence, to support or refute a claim.
Ok, but otherwise how'm I doing?

5 comments:

Zippy Zygote said...

SFL, I am returning here after an extended absence in absolute tears. The Florida Supreme Court has gutted the economic loss rule. *choke* *sob* I don't want to live in a world where plaintiffs can bring tort claims that are not independent of a breach of contract.

Anonymous said...

Fantastic goods from you, man. I have understand your stuff previous to and you
are just extremely great. I actually like what you've acquired here, really like what you're stating and
the way in which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still take care
of to keep it sensible. I can't wait to read far more from you. This is really a wonderful site.

my homepage; registry cleaners

Anonymous said...

Embarrassing. Plaintiffs’ counsel are Joseph Slama and Mark Giuliana of Krupnick Campbell in Fort Lauderdale.

Marra previously had this to say in his summary judgment order:

"Plaintiffs have made 1 it very difficult for the Court to create this list because, in
some instances, they have misstated the record in their Statement of Facts (DE 185),
and they have failed to cite the record in the body of their Memorandum in Opposition
to Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 184). In addition, Plaintiffs have ignored the Local
Rules, which require, in pertinent part, that “statements of material facts submitted in
opposition to a motion for summary judgment shall correspond with the order and with
the paragraph numbering scheme used by the movant . . . Additional facts which the
party opposing summary judgment contends are material shall be numbered and placed
at the end of the opposing party’s statement of material facts . . .” Local Rule 56.1.
Defendants, in turn, offer little aid by not responding to any of Plaintiffs’ numbered
statements, but instead, simply “dispute and deny” all 50 paragraphs. DE 190 at 2."

Anonymous said...

The autobot that commented at 1:07p.m. really knows you well, SFL! I presume if you set up an automated commenting device, it would spit out something like: "Do you want flatbread with your pasta bolognese, Melanie Damian? We can chat Iqbal in the Bunker and do toe-tapping with Spencer Aronfeld. Gin Gibsons for all!"

Anonymous said...

3:08 nailed it.