3d DCA Watch -- Dayenu Edition!

Hi kids, it's pool party time in the bunker, which means the judges are out back in the cee-ment pond enjoying the lazy, hazy days of summer.

I've even got a photo!

But they still had time to take care of bidness:

Hum do dee dum, what does this case have to do with a talking point about one of the biggest political issues of the day? 

Let's ask Judge Shepherd:
The filings by his counsel in this Court alone now exceed the number of pages contained in the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 18001, et seq.
Richard Goldman, Kenneth Goldman, Mitchel Goldman, Ethan Goldman, and Andrea Carless appeal the trial court’s order awarding attorney’s fees and costs in favor of appellee, Jonathan Lewin.1 We reverse the order without prejudice because the trial court, under its inherent authority to award attorney’s fees and costs, failed to make bad faith findings.
Bath Club v. Bath Club:
And he shall be Legon
And he shall be a good man
And he shall be Legon
In tradition with the family plan
And he shall be Legon
And he shall be a good man
He shall be Legon!

Aurora Bank v. Cimbler:

I like this mediator personally, he's an excellent mediator in fact, and he does lots of good things in the community.

But don't cancel on the dude:
The record reflects that the Bank promptly objected to Mr. Cimbler mediating this case. It was unfortunate that Mr. Cimbler apparently was not notified timely that his services would not be necessary. We do not quarrel with the trial court’s decision to award Mr. Cimbler the $1,250 that Mr. Cimbler sought as a monetary sanction for not being notified timely of the cancellation. Nor do we quarrel with the factual finding apparently made by the trial court that the Bank was responsible for not timely notifying Mr. Cimbler of the cancellation. Indeed, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.720(f), expressly authorizes the trial court to award sanctions upon a determination that a party has failed to appear at a duly noticed mediation conference without good cause.

Virtually every other action undertaken by the trial court regarding the dispute between the Bank, its counsel, and Mr. Cimbler, however, constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.

It was error to allow Mr. Cimbler—who was not selected to mediate the case—to intervene in the case.

It was error for the trial court to entertain the idea of conducting a “judicial inquiry” into why the Bank or the Wolfe Law Firm may have objected to Mr. Cimbler mediating the case.

It was error to allow Mr. Cimbler to propound discovery on the Bank and the Wolfe Law Firm as to why certain mediators are selected and why others are objected to.

It was error to deny the motions for protective order that challenged the propriety of having to turn over confidential, privileged documents relating to the Bank’s or the Wolfe Law Firm’s selection of mediators.

It was error to sanction the Bank and the Wolfe Law Firm for not responding to Mr. Cimbler’s discovery.

Each of these judicial acts, manifested and encompassed within the Third Sanctions Order, constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law, irreparably harming the Bank and the Wolfe Law Firm, for which no remedy would be available on plenary appeal.
Am I wrong or does the Court's order have a little "Dayenu" cadence to it?

"That would have been sufficient!"

"And THAT would have been sufficient!"

"And even THAT would have been sufficient!"


  1. SFL, you're being way too kind.

  2. Pure lawlessness.

  3. Judge Miller really screwed the pooch on the Cimbler case.

  4. I had reading Opinions where the case is remanded for failure of the trial court to make appropriate findings/conclusions in an order. If you win one of the those hearings, why not do some simple research to see what the law requires to be contained in such an order and submit an appropriate proposed order?

  5. Miller's rulings go to the 3d DCA with the presumption of incorrectness.


Post a Comment