Thursday, February 27, 2014

3d DCA Watch -- Incredible Work Load Edition!



It's been a extraordinarily busy time in the bunker, as the dedicated crafters of written utterances worked overtime and long into the night to produce an explosive increase in judicial output (just like that creaky old steam shovel!).

It's as if everyone stopped thighmastering, stopped coffee-swilling, stopped Resplendently Robing, and just decided to crank out opinion after opinion after opinion.

Are you ready?  Brace yourself, here they are -- SEVEN ACTUAL OPINIONS IN A SINGLE WEEK!!!


Take a victory lap, Judges, you can rest at least until June.

Do v. Geico:

Great set of facts.  Car "stolen," GEICO refuses to pay insured but paid (after lawsuit was filed) the vehicle lienholder.

Confession of judgment?  Yep:
Because GEICO’s payment of the claim to the vehicle lienholder after Do filed suit against it was the functional equivalent of a confession of judgment in favor of Do, the trial court erred in denying an award of attorney’s fees to Do for prosecuting his suit pursuant to section 627.428.
Duh.

Vickers v. HBS:

Wait a second, hold on, I can feel it, yes yes yes yes yes YES:
We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to permit limited jurisdictional discovery (if necessary), and thereafter to conduct a limited evidentiary hearing as set forth by the Florida Supreme Court in Venetian Salami.

Was it good for you?

Gulliver v. Snay:

Don't let your daughter post confidential case settlement details on Facebook.

What do you all think of this case?

(I tend to think Judge Lopez got it right.)

12 comments:

  1. I'm sorry, but how in the world can you think Judge Lopez got that right? Because she said "won" instead of "settled"? It's not even a close call when you look at the language of the agreement and his admission that he told his daughter about it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gulliver being dickish.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fake Third DCA JudgeFebruary 27, 2014 at 3:02 PM

    I respectfully dissent. Snay's having told his daughter that the case "had been settled" and that he was "pleased with the results" breached nothing.

    First, the settlement agreement talks about the "exisitence" and "terms" of the "agreement." Just saying that the case had been settled doesn't disclose the existence of any agreement at all. Parties, we know, sometimes settle cases by walking away. No agreement necessary. Snay's saying that the case had been settled, therefore, did not disclose the existence of an agreement.

    Second, Snay told his daughter that he was "happy with the results." But that statement, too, does not disclose the existence of any agreement. So for the majority's result to hold up, then it must have referred to a "term" of the agreement. But just what "term" of the agreement does Snay's statement disclose? The majority plainly has not identified the term, and I'm at a loss about what the term was, too.

    Last, the result strikes me as abusrd. The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal saying that "the parties have settled this action." That stipulation, moreover, stated that the court would retain jurisdiction "for enforcement of the settlement agreement." I'm sorry, but if it is in the public domain that the case had been settled -- AND IF THE COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION "FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT" -- it's hard to say that a breach could occur by simply reiterating that which is already in the public domain.

    In sum, the majority is wrong, plain and simple. For these reasons, I'd concur with brother SFL and affirm the trial court's order enforcing the agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  4. much ado about nothing

    ReplyDelete
  5. If @ 3:02 pm is Juan Ramirez, he should have been so thoughtful when he was in the bunker.

    Oh who am I kidding...@ 2:40 pm is Ramirez....

    ReplyDelete
  6. Forgetting the part about the European vacation = payment of money.

    ReplyDelete
  7. good example for pltff lawyers to give to their clients to prevent breach of confidentiality. this was a breach the second the father told the daughter, not just when the daughter then posted her suck it comment on facebook.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Re Vickers: anyone who's been practicing a year or two (including the trial judge) knows that Venetian Salami requires an evidentiary hearing where personal jurisdiction affidavits contract one another. Poo poo on plaintiff's counsel and trial court for that one.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Now we are going to have litigation over gag clauses and confidential settlements. Vomit. This decision is motivated by a spiteful dislike of the social media world we live in. But then how in heaven did that plaintiff lawyer agree to that awful language. In the end, the decision is bad for Florida jurisprudence (but mana for the insurance defense industrial complex).

    ReplyDelete
  10. The school was being vindictive and the whole world now knows all the settlement details. Clearly they didn't care about the violation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Trashy new money.

    Icky .

    ReplyDelete
  12. We tweet out all our victories. We have a devil may care 'tude at the hippest, hottest, PI firm in Miami.

    ReplyDelete