Here we go again -- every Wednesday precisely at 10:30 a.m. the Resplendently Robed Ones make their little cry out for attention: "read me read me!" they scream out from their hermetically sealed concrete encasement; "I'm important, very important you must pay attention to me!" they howl from their coffee-encrusted thighmaster weight/mechanical room.
And like good little enablers we say "ok, dear powerful judges, what significant rulings have you to impart upon us today" -- like we do each and every week, and BOOM -- they're all like "just a bunch of PCAs never you mind I'm sure you have much more important things to read today. I'll just watch the traffic go by don't worry about us."
DARN THEY DID IT TO US AGAIN!
Actually, there are quite a few opinions this week. Let's take a look:
Be careful what you wish for:
In an earlier opinion, we summarily reversed the order on appeal and granted Albelo’s motion for an award of appellate attorney fees pursuant to section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (2011). Upon issuance of our original opinion, Southern Oak retained new counsel (Rehearing Counsel), who pointed out to us that Albelo failed to satisfy the requirements of the safe harbor provision of section 57.105(1). Rehearing Counsel argues in the alternative that the argument made on behalf of Southern Oak before this court was non-frivolous.Ouch!!
While we agree with Rehearing Counsel that Albelo failed to satisfy the requirements of the safe harbor provision, we respectfully disagree with Rehearing Counsel that the argument made to us was non-frivolous. The twenty-one-day safe harbor provision does not apply to court-initiated sanctions. See Koch v. Koch, 47 So. 3d 320, 324-25 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Accordingly, we now grant sanctions against Southern Oak and its initial counsel on our own motion.
Chevaldina v. R.K:
In a case we've written about previously, and as predicted, the injunction entered against the anonymous blogger has been reversed:
Angry social media postings are now common. Jilted lovers, jilted tenants, and attention-seeking bloggers spew their anger into fiber-optic cables and cyberspace. But analytically, and legally, these rants are essentially the electronic successors of the pre-blog, solo complainant holding a poster on a public sidewalk in front of an auto dealer that proclaimed, “DON’T BUY HERE! ONLY LEMONS FROM THESE CROOKS!” Existing and prospective customers of the auto dealership considering such a poster made up their minds based on their own experience and research. If and when a hypothetical complainant with the poster walked into the showroom and harangued individual customers, or threatened violence, however, the previously-protected opinion crossed the border into the land of trespass, business interference, and amenability to tailored injunctive relief. The same well-developed body of law allows the complaining blogger to complain, with liability for money damages for defamation if the complaints are untruthful and satisfy the elements of that cause of action. Injunctive relief to prohibit such complaints is another matter altogether.Hmm -- "[j]ilted lovers, jilted tenants, and attention-seeking bloggers spew their anger into fiber-optic cables and cyberspace."
Umm, thank you?