"Control the clock and control the game. Winning coaches in many sports have employed this strategy."

Judge Rosenbaum, a Chapel Hill native, wrote an opinion today with the lede as an ode to Dean Smith:  "Control the clock and control the game. Winning coaches in many sports have employed this strategy."  Here's the footnote associated with that sentence:

The legendary basketball coach Dean Smith was famous for, among other things, his Four Corners offense, a strategy all about controlling the clock. Dean Smith Dies at Age of 83, ESPN.com (Feb. 12, 2015), http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/12296176 /dean-smith-former-north-carolina-tar-heels-coach-dies-age-83 (“Smith’s Four Corners time-melting offense led to the creation of the shot clock to counter it.”). During his 36 seasons coaching basketball at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, Coach Smith amassed a .776 winning percentage that included eleven Final Four appearances, two national championships, seventeen ACC regular-season titles, and thirteen ACC tournament titles. Id. When Coach Smith passed away, the Tar Heels paid tribute to him by running his Four Corners offense in their first offensive possession in the game following his death. UNC Honors Dean Smith by Running Four Corners Offense, SportsIllustrated.com (Feb. 21, 2015), https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/02/21/dean-smith-unc-four-corners-tar-heels.

The rest of the intro, in case you are interested in what the case was about:

And Plaintiff-Appellee Jim Barrett asserts that the lesson wasn’t lost on Defendant-Appellant Walker County School District, either. To speak at a Walker County Board of Education meeting, the District requires a member of the public to first go through a process that can consist of several steps. If the entire process is not completed at least one week before the Board meeting, the citizen may not speak at the meeting. Yet critically, the Board completely controls the timing of a step at the beginning of the process. If the Board drags its feet in completing this step, a member of the public cannot finish the rest of the steps in time to be permitted to speak.
Barrett is a public-school teacher who believes that the District has wielded this policy to unconstitutionally censor speech critical of the Board and its employees at school-board meetings. He filed suit in federal court, asserting a variety of First Amendment facial and as-applied claims in his quest for, among other things, an injunction against various aspects of the Board’s policy governing public comment at its meetings.
The district court ultimately granted Barrett a permanent injunction based on some of his facial claims and enjoined the Board’s public-comment policy. It also allowed a number of Barrett’s other claims to proceed to discovery.
Defendants now appeal the injunction. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which allows us to review “[i]nterlocutory orders . . . granting . . . injunctions.” After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Judge Julie Carnes concurred in a written opinion.

Save the Whales!

Judge Cooke issued this interesting order involving Lolita the orca, hosued at the Miami Seaquarium: "Lolita’s lack of protection from the elements is particularly troubling given reports that Seaquarium left her in her tank as Hurricane Irma battered South Florida."

Here's what is on Judge Cooke's mind:

1. Does Seaquarium’s orca tank currently meet AWA space and shade/shelter requirements?
2. What impact, if any, would the tank’s current failure to meet AWA space and shade/shelter requirements have on the pending Motions to Dismiss?
3. If Seaquairum’s orca tank does not currently meet AWA space and shade/shelter requirements, what, if any, remedy can this Court order to correct those deficiencies?

Here's a picture of her shortly before the storm.

Save the Whales! by David Oscar Markus on Scribd

Shocker -- feds now say Scott Rothstein was lying

Shocker -- Feds now say Scott Rothstein was lying! You don't say!

From the Herald:

Convicted South Florida Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein, a disbarred attorney who ran a $1.2 billion investment scheme out of his Fort Lauderdale law firm, will not be receiving a reduction in his 50-year prison sentence because he lied to federal prosecutors, authorities said Tuesday.

Prosecutors withdrew their pending motion to reduce Rothstein's sentence based on his cooperation in the sprawling racketeering investigation because he was “untruthful in an affidavit” filed with the federal court. Rothstein, who helped the U.S. attorney's office gain convictions of almost 30 defendants, was hoping to see many years cut from his sentence for his assistance.

That reward won't happen.

“In the judgment of the United States, the defendant provided false material information to the government and violated the terms of his plea agreement,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Lawrence LaVecchio wrote in a motion to withdraw an earlier request for a sentence reduction with U.S. District Judge James Cohn. “Therefore, in the exercise of its sole discretion, the government moves to withdraw the previously filed motion.”

U.S. Attorney's office moves to dismiss Emoluments lawsuit against President Trump

The local U.S. Attorney's office (by AUSA Carlos Raurell) has moved to dismiss the Emoluments lawsuit against President Trump.  Here is the motion to dismiss:

Goggins Motion to Dismiss Trump emoluments clause case by David Oscar Markus on Scribd

Kevin Newsom's first published opinion

Eleventh Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom penned his first published opinion, and it looks like the 11th added another interesting writer.  From the opening paragraph:

This is a tax case. Fear not, keep reading. In determining whether the IRS properly denied a taxpayer’s claimed deduction on his 2011 return, we must decide two important and (as it turns out) interesting questions. First up: Was the money that a homosexual man paid to father children through in vitro fertilization—and in particular, to identify, retain, compensate, and care for the women who served as an egg donor and a gestational surrogate—spent “for the purpose of affecting” his body’s reproductive “function” within the meaning of I.R.C. § 213? And second: In answering the statutory question “no,” and thus in disallowing the taxpayer’s deduction of his IVF-related expenses, did the IRS violate his right to equal protection of the laws either by infringing a “fundamental right” or by engaging in unconstitutional discrimination? We hold that the costs of the IVF-related procedures at issue were not paid for the purpose of affecting the taxpayer’s own reproductive function—and therefore are not deductible—and that the IRS did not violate the Constitution in disallowing the deduction. 

JNC accepting applications for federal judge

The JNC is now accepting applications for federal judge.  Here is the letter explaining the procedure.  There are 5 vacancies, and the JNC will be sending up 10 names.  These are all openings for Ft. Lauderdale, West Palm, and Ft. Pierce.  None of the openings are for Miami.  The applications are due October 12 and interviews will be November 28 and 29.  Here is the application form.

(Also, applications are due today for magistrate judge).

More on the U.S. Attorney slot below.

Ariana Fajardo Orshan is new front runner for U.S. Attorney

Ariana Fajardo Orshan is the new front runner for U.S. Attorney, according to Marc Caputo. She is a judge in the family division, went to FIU for undergrad, and Nova for law school.  From Caputo's article:

A Miami family court judge is emerging as a new favorite to become the next U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, a post of keen interest to President Donald Trump because its jurisdiction includes his self-styled winter White House, Mar-a-Lago.

Circuit Judge Ariana Fajardo Orshan in recent days has risen to the top of a crowded pack of potential nominees and has the backing of Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. Rick Scott, one of Trump’s most loyal supporters. Scott appointed her to the bench in Florida’s Eleventh Circuit Court in 2012 before she was reelected without opposition in 2014.

“Governor Scott was glad to appoint Judge Ariana Fajardo Orshan to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in 2012," said Scott spokesman John Tupps in an email to POLITICO Florida. "The Governor believes that Judge Fajardo Orshan has served the families of South Florida faithfully during her time on the bench.”

Fajardo Orshan, who gave POLITICO a “no comment” when called about the buzz over her possible nomination, also has the support of Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, a fellow Miami Republican who served as the top prosecutor in the South Florida district under President George W. Bush, according to sources familiar with the nominating process. Acosta was also dean of Florida International University’s law school, where Fajardo Orshan is an adjunct professor.

11th Circuit asks for help from Texas

This must not have been easy.  The 11th Circuit has asked for some help from the Texas Supreme Court.  Favorite of Twitter, Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett: Get Ready!

CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V, § 3–c(a) OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS AND ITS HONORABLE JUSTICES:
This appeal arises from an allegedly defective surgical mesh implant. The question to be answered concerns whether under the Texas “discovery rule” a claim accrues for  purposes of starting the applicable statute of limitations period when a plaintiff knows, or has reason to know, that there is a connection between her injury and the defendant’s product or whether instead accrual (and the corresponding start of the limitations period) occurs only when the plaintiff also has reason to know that the manufacturer acted wrongfully or negligently in its manufacture of the product.
The District Court concluded that the former interpretation of Texas law was correct, and therefore granted summary judgment in favor of Mentor Worldwide LCC, the Appellee in this case. The Appellant, Ms. Ann Bergin—a resident of Texas—argues that accrual requires discovery of both the injury and its negligent cause. Thus, she avers, the District Court erred in its application of Texas law. To resolve this appeal, we must decide which of the above positions is correct, but that answer depends on an unresolved question of Texas law. We therefore certify this question of law, based on the factual background recited below, to the Supreme Court of Texas and respectfully request its guidance.