D.O.M. called

“You haven’t posted anything.”
That was D.O.M. again, calling from wherever.
“Yup.”
“What about that case where Judge Altonaga got affirmed for asserting jurisdiction over the pre-WWII Germans?”
“Yeah, I saw that.”
“So, why not write something up, Professor?”
D.O.M. only busts out my title when things are dark, so I said,
“Well, you gave the blog over to the people who write comments.”
“I thought you didn’t read the comments.”
“I don’t.”
Beat.
“You’re being too uptight about this.”
That was D.O.M. breaking the silence.
“Maybe.”
Beat.

1600!!!

There's a certain honour with being the blogger to post the 1600th post on David O Markus's famous Southern District Of Florida Blog. And with DOM being out of town and unawares, we decided to grab the honour before he could change his mind and revoke our blogging privileges.

For those of you discriminating enough to read our own humble blog about the Richard E Gerstein Courthouse in Miami, you know that last week we promised- at the possible expense of Mr. Markus's standing in the community and his law license- to post a joke that started off this way: " A rabbi, a priest, President Obama and (insert your favourite federal judge here) walk into Tobacco road...."

But before we get to the punch line, there's this to consider:

Rumpole's person of the day:

Meet Former Jet Blue Flight Attendant Steven Slater. On a flight on Monday inbound to JFK from Pittsburgh, Mr. Slater had a confrontation with an unruly female passenger. (Side note- those gals from the Steel City can be quite a handful when they've had a few Iron City beers in them). Upon landing at JFK, Mr. Slater had all he could take. When the plane stopped taxing, Mr. Sater activated the emergency exit, deployed the emergency slide, grabbed a beer from the beverage cart, and slid off the plane and into instant fame. Mr. Slater got into his car and drove home to Queens where a few hours later a few members of New York's Finest showed up to arrest him on a slate of charges. For those of you who exclusively practice in Federal Court, The NY Times coverage is here.

For those of you who occasionally venture over to State Court, the NY Post coverage is here. (Headline was "Wing-Nut pleads not guilty.")

Punchline: They all walk up to the bar and order a round of beers. And the bartender looks up and sees who has walked in and says: 'what is this, some kind of joke?' "

Sorry folks, this is what happens when DOM goes on vacation.

See You in Court.

HR.

PS-if you want to know something useful about current federal legal developments, read South Florida Lawyer's post just below this one. We craftily waited until he posted number 1599 so we could grab 1600.

11th Circuit Limits "Safety-Valve" Sentencing Relief.

Hi kids, SFL here, killing time while David O undoubtedly does something glamorous and exciting I am sure.

I'm glad I don't do any criminal, because if I did I'd have to use the term "safety-valve" as part of my work.

Instead I'm stuck with delightful words and phrases such as "Celotex," "Iqbal," "Venetian Salami" and "mending the hold."

But for those of you who derive some kind of legal meaning from a safety valve, you may consider this new 11th Circuit opinion of value, which disagrees with several other circuits on this question:

The question we must resolve today is this one: can a district court grant safety-valve relief when reducing a defendant’s sentence pursuant to section 3582(c)(2)? The answer is “no,” because the safety-valve is inapplicable to sentence-modification proceedings.

Best I can tell, the 11th reasons that a Section 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not a "sentencing or resentencing" proceeding, but is instead a "modification of a term of imprisonment."
 
But then later there's a footnote in which the 11th acknowledges "they are in some sense a sentencing proceeding."

So I'm glad crim law makes as much sense as civil litigation?

Big news from the road

Judge Paul Huck has informed President Obama that he will be taking senior status. That makes three current openings; Judge Hurley (to be filled by Kathy Williams); Judge Gold; and now Judge Huck.

Judge Huck has been a wonderful district judge and is regarded as the hardest working judge in the District. I have lots more to say when I can get to a computer instead of this phone. In the meantime, congrats to Judge Huck.

Good luck to...

... Brian Stekloff, who after making a good name for himself at the PD's office, is off to Paul Weiss in DC.

They needed someone to try cases, and they found the right guy.

Straw buyers walk

Four of em... Before Judge D after an 11 day trial. Defendants repped by Phil Horowitz, Alan Kaufman, Brian Tannebaum, and John Wylie. Congrats.

Get ready for the guest bloggers

Taking a little break from the blog for a week. Starting tomorrow, you'll have SFL, Rumpole, and Rick Bascuas entertaining you. Enjoy.

Magistrate feels “like a schoolmarm scolding little boys."

The whole opinion is definitely worth a read. Here's a snippet:

• My practice is to preliminarily review every motion called an “emergency” the day it
  is filed. However, other cases, motions filed, scheduled hearings and settlement conferences do not afford me the luxury of dropping everything to hear a party’s perceived “emergency” especially when it involves a case that has already taken an inordinate amount of the court’s time (to the detriment of other litigants who need decisions in their matters) to resolve yet another in a series of routine discovery disputes. Thus, as the motion has worked its way up the tall stack of other matters on my desk, there are no longer any depositions to take.
• I am not the Maytag repairman of federal judges desperately hoping for something to do.
• Counsel for Plaintiff could not resist replying. Mr Kossack’s reply adds up the number of Mr. Cannon’s improper objections during Mr. McCurdy’s deposition and compares them to the number of improper objections Mr. Cannon accuses him of making. Not wanting to miss an opportunity to engage equally unseemly “tit-for-tat,” Mr Kossack pads his reply with gratuitous comments which include a reference to counsels’ respective choice of beverages during depositions.
• To ensure that reading the 185 pages of these exchanges was not a complete waste of time, I assigned this motion to a law student extern to prepare a legal memorandum to further his education. In a short period of time he was able to prepare a well-written, concise memo which identified a large number of state and federal cases throughout the country articulating the standards for making deposition objections and identifying improper conduct for which lawyers have been admonished or sanctioned. He correctly concluded that both lawyers engaged in misconduct which violated Rule 30(c)(2).
• The exchanges related in excruciating, repetitive detail in the moving and responsive papers and their attachments were painful to read. If I was an elementary school teacher instead of a judge I would require both counsel to write the following clearly established legal rules on a blackboard 500 times.
• Although these papers, and the conduct they relate, make me feel like a school marm scolding little boys, I am the judge whose duty it is to decide this motion. Accordingly, Mr. Kossack and Mr. Cannon are admonished for engaging in conduct which I know you know violates Rule 30(c)(2). You are better men and better lawyers than the conduct in which you have engaged illustrates.