Coke, Suede And Waterbeds!

I'm in a Sopwith Camel sort of mood today --must be the weird weather.

You too?

Here are a few items clogging my ability to concentrate on all-encompassing and highly elaborate Mad Men theories work:

1.  Anyone remember the poker playboy who threw the porn star off the roof?

His lawyer wrote a really, really, very snarky letter to the porn star's attorney -- too much, or just right?

2.  Anyone remember the Miccosukee Tribe suit pending before Judge Cooke?

Guess it's still going on, as this interesting 11th Circuit opinion demonstrates.

In particular there is a fascinating discussion about what to do when one panel decision conflicts with another:
The Miccosukee Tribe cites to our decision in Bender v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 971 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1992), to support its contention that the district court's order is immediately appealable, even though the court did not dismiss all pending claims in the complaint. In Bender. the plaintiff brought federal and state claims against her employer and supervisor, who then moved to stay the suit pending arbitration. ld. at 699. The district court found that the state law claims were subject to arbitration and dismissed those claims, but it refused to dismiss or stay the federal claims. ld. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal or her state law claims, and we held that appellate jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 even though the district court had not dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims. Id.

While Bender does support the Miccosukee Tribe's argument, our prior panel precedent rule prevents that opinion from controlling our decision here. Under that rule, when there are two prior circuit precedents that conflict, we must follow the earlier one. See, e.g., United States v. Madden, 733 F.3d 1314, 1319 (11th Cir. 2013) ("When we have conflicting case law, we follow our oldest precedent."); United States v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306, 1316 (11th Cir. 2004) ("Where there is a conflict between a prior panel decision and those that came before it, we must follow the earlier ones."); United States v. Dailey, 24 F.3d 1323, 1327 (11th Cir. 1994) {"When there is no method for reconciling an intracircuit conflict of authority, the earliest panel opinion resolving the issue in question binds this circuit until the court resolves the issue en banc.")(quotation marks omitted).

That is what we must do here because Bender is inconsistent with the rule, set out in our prior precedent, that "any order adjudicating fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties in a suit is not [an appealable] final judgment under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291" absent Rule 54(b) certification. See, e.g., In re Yam Processing Patent Validity Litig., 680 F.2d 1338, 1339 (11th Cir. 1982). As a result, Bender does not control our analysis.
(Even if it's right!)

See, now you actually learned something from this crappy blog.

Also, taking a quick look at Judge Cooke's docket, it appears things are heating up, Rule 11-wise.

3.  Finally, a new growth area in the law -- "assisted reproductive technology" -- try explaining that to your 94-year old grandma!

Happy Friday!!


  1. The Daily Business Review article indicated that the lawyers for the indians are looking at huge fines, bar sanctions and maybe more.

  2. Guy and Mike are playing with the house money now.

  3. Just from reading the papers and blogs,, it seems like the tribes lawsuits have been a big fraud on the court. What sanctions are enough, if that is the case ? Disbarment ? Man, the judges must be upset.

  4. ^^^^^^those three posts up there smell like they are from the same scaredy cat porster, afraid of defaming someone

  5. Maybe jay weaver wrote them .... Lol !

  6. Sounds like someone needs to lawyer up ......perp walk for tribe lawyers ?

  7. Target letter coming ....

  8. one guy = six posts

  9. That's why I love SFL! He makes even me feel normal.

    Enjoy the weekend! XO

  10. Best blog in Miami!

  11. Happy Friday\Weekend. SFL & GW.

  12. Crappy blog? No!

    Awesome blog? Yes!!

  13. The bar investigation of the tribe lawyers! details! details!


Post a Comment