3d DCA Watch -- Don't Let the Door Hit You.....

Hi kids, the Bunker Brigade has returned -- and this time they wrote some opinions!

Let's take a peek:

Hmm, old story -- insurance company denies hurricane claim, asserting notice was untimely.

Plaintiff in depo says she advised the insurance company, but later says she really meant her insurance agent.  She tries to clean that up via affidavit in response to an sj motion.


Yes, says Judge Saurez; no no no and no sayeth Judge Schwartz in dissent:
It is no coincidence that the plaintiffs considered the affidavit necessary to avoid summary judgment only after—during the period between the deposition and the summary judgment hearing—it was conclusively demonstrated, through its records and the testimony of its agents, that nobody called Citizens at all. Thus, the Siguenzas could win only if, despite the total lack of corroborating evidence, Mrs. Siguenza actually (twice) called the agent with no response. So that is what she had to say, and therefore, is what she said.
Ok, as long as no one is making any credibility determinations on appeal!

Alvarez v. Reemployment Assistance:

Here's Judge Schwartz again, with a tantalizing footnote that is far more interesting than the actual opinion itself:
Because there is no doubt that his entry was improper, it is legally irrelevant – although interesting – that his purpose in doing so was to deliver an anonymous, otherwise unobjectionable complimentary note to a co-worker he admired.
Ahh, but that is the most interesting aspect of the opinion -- tell us more!

Was it unrequited love?  Requited love?  Were these crazy, star-crossed lovers just destined to be together, despite the rigors and scheduling complexities of being a night security guard at a performing arts complex?

Curious readers demand to know more!

Lomax v. Officer Reynolds:

I just can't quit you, Miami-Dade judicial system, but it looks like I might have to:
Lomax has served as an unending source of vexatious and meritless litigation both here and below. See note 2. The standards of Lussy have been met, as have the criteria set forth in Safir. Therefore we prohibit Lomax from further self-representation in this Court or in the court below. We direct both the Clerk of this Court and the Clerk of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to reject any further filings by Lomax or on her behalf unless signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. Any other cases that are pending in this Court, or below, in which Lomax is representing herself shall be dismissed unless a notice of appearance signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar is filed in each case within thirty days of this opinion becoming final.
(Personally, I think they're going to miss her.)


  1. The "standards of Lussy" sounds like a sexual doctrine I am unfamiliar with. Curious.

  2. Is this Spence's new web campaign?



Post a Comment