Wednesday, July 31, 2013

3d DCA Watch -- The Schwartz is Strong With This One.

Hi there!

The bunker mates recently conferred a lifetime achievement award on Judge Schwartz for authoring or participating in nearly every 3d DCA opinion for the last gazillion years:
Dedication to Judge Alan R. Schwartz

On July 11, 2013, the Court honored Judge Alan R. Schwartz by presenting to him Volume 111 So. 3d., dedicated to him for his extensive work both as a lawyer and a judge.  As of the date of publication, Judge Schwartz has authored more than 2,000 opinions, which span over 1,000 volumes in the Southern Reporter.
Congratulations Judge and may the Schwartz always be with us!

In other news, there were some written utterances:

Alderwoods Group v. Garcia:

The trial court certified a class of lost dead people at a local cemetery. 

Guess what happened next!

HSBC v. Williams:

So a little bank foreclosed on a homeowner but didn't comply with discovery orders.  Fees and costs to homeowner upheld.

Chase v. Sarmiento:

So another little bank foreclosed on a homeowner in 2009 and then forgot all about it for a while.  Failure to prosecute dismissal reversed:
The record reflects that Chase timely filed multiple filings with the trial court after it received the June 14, 2012, notice for failure to prosecute. Such record activity is sufficient to preclude dismissal.
Yeah, why the rush?

Publix v. Santos:

A customer at Publix slipped and fell on "old wet spinach or some other transitory substance."

Oops -- so that's where I left it -- my bad.

7 comments:

  1. Blasphemer! Taking the Schwartz in vain!

    ReplyDelete
  2. All I have to say about the Publix opinion is, WTF? You granted cert for that? True, what the plaintiff was seeking was overbroad and likely not calculated to lead to the discovery of any admissible evidence. But that happens in most cases. The Third DCA puts forth a plausible interpretation of the statute at issue (though not the only one). At the end of the day, though, it still concludes, basically, that the request is objectionable because it is overbroad (specifically, that it seeks information from all Publixes and not just the Publix where the slip and fall occurred). Not necessarily pleasant for Publix and its attorneys to have to respond to that, but not cert-worthy, either.

    Additionally, what's up with using online dictionaries to define terms? Nobody over there owns a hardcopy of Black's? Or any other dictionary? These opinions do get reported, after all. Some attention to style is warranted.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another slap for Plaintiff slip and fall lawyers. Can contributory negligence be far off?

    ReplyDelete
  4. A class of lost dead people.

    Love that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 2,000 opinions blinded by bile. Such a legacy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Where did you find that shirt? My sister just became a lawyer in Newfoundland and I bet she'd love one.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Insurance defense lawyers are MOrons. Why make this argument. They are cutting down their business pool. But that is what defense bozos did with med mal and now they are crying the blues becuase that work dried up.

    ReplyDelete