Judge Atkins

By John R. Byrne

Ever heard someone mention the "Atkins Building" or "Atkins Courthouse"? It's located across from the Wilkie D. and it's where many of our magistrate judges currently sit. The courthouse is named after Judge C. Clyde Atkins. A tribute from UF law school described him as a "champion of civil rights and a defender of those who were less fortunate." Among his important rulings were his orders desegregating Miami-Dade County Public schools (Pate v. Dade County School Board, 315 F. Supp. 1161 (S.D. Fla. 1969).

FBA write-up below.

Judge C. Clyde Atkins was nominated by President Lyndon B. Johnson and served on the district court from 1966-1999. In Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551 (S.D. Fla. 1992), Judge Atkins found that the City of Miami violated the constitutional rights of unhoused individuals through a policy of arresting them for unavoidable, life-sustaining acts in public and by seizing and destroying their property, warranting injunctive relief under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The façade and entrance of the courthouse that bears Judge Atkins’s name recently received an impressive renovation.

Judge Smith Orders Release of Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

Judge Rodney Smith has granted a motion to unseal the grand jury transcripts from the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in the mid-2000s. Though a previous motion was denied, Judge Smith held that the newly enacted Epstein Files Transparency Act trumps Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6's prohibition on disclosure. The Department of Justice has until December 19 to comply. Full order is here.

Blogger Returns

 By John R Byrne

Cue the “Welcome Back, Kotter” theme music. After a three-month-plus long civil RICO trial in state court, DOM is back at his desk at SDFLA Blog HQ. The verdict? A mistrial. Oof. Then again, any day your corporate client isn’t told by a jury to stroke a check for $1.2 billion has to be a good one. The trial ended with some drama, with one juror accusing another of misconduct in a note apparently crafted with the help of AI (the judge concluded the allegations were not credible). Oh, and jurors dressed up like Dr. Seuss characters from “The Cat and the Hat” on Halloween. Federal judges with Halloween trials take note! Article on the trial is here.

A different deliberative body had no issue delivering its verdict on Saturday. The College Football Playoff Committee released the greatly anticipated 12 team playoff slate. No lack of drama here either. Like a high stakes version of musical chairs, there were three teams (Miami, Notre Dame, or Alabama) fighting for two at-large playoff seats. The CFP went with Miami and Alabama. 

Miami was a no brainer. But putting Alabama in over ND was just criminal. Alabama had three losses and looked awful over the past month, losing to Oklahoma, squeaking by a terrible Auburn team, and getting walloped by Georgia on Saturday. What drove the committee’s decision? Basic SEC bias? Fear of the potential wrath of powerful SEC commissioner Greg Sankey? A five-minute Zoom call with universally loved federal judge and diehard Alabama fan James I. Cohn? These are the questions we want answers to!

Judge Mehrtens

By John R. Byrne

Today we're featuring Judge William O. Mehrtens. Longtime district court judge (served 15 years). Double Gator. Served as a lieutenant commander in the Navy during World War II. Best remembered for his important opinion backing treasure hunter Mel Fischer in his dispute with the State of Florida over the wreck of a 17th-century Spanish galleon carrying hundreds of millions in treasure. Case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which mostly affirmed Mehrtens's ruling. Check out that opinion here. I like this quote: "As grave as the perils of sea are and were, the gravest perils to the treasure itself came not from the sea but from two unlikely sources. Agents of two governments, Florida and the United States, who have the highest responsibility to protect rights and property of citizens, claimed the treasure as belonging to the United States and Florida."

FBA write up below.

Judge William O. Mehrtens was nominated by President Lyndon B. Johnson and served on the district court from 1965-1980. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Mehrtens served in the U.S. Naval Reserve during World War II. In Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 459 F. Supp. 507 (S.D. Fla. 1978), Judge Mehrtens ruled that Treasure Salvors, Inc. retained exclusive rights to treasure, including “gold, silver, artifacts, and armament” salvaged from the sunken Spanish vessel Nuestra Señora de Atocha, rejecting Florida’s competing ownership claims.

Who do you think won the Megan Thee Stallion trial?

The jury found for Megan but only awarded her $75,000.  Meghann Cuniff, who has covered the whole trial, has the scoop here:

A jury in Miami, Florida, on Monday found an online commentator liable for defaming rapper Megan Thee Stallion and intentionally inflicting emotional distress on her by coordinating with the rapper who’s in prison for shooting her five years ago.

Milagro Cooper also was found liable for promoting a digitally altered sexual depiction of Megan.

Jurors awarded Megan $75,000 in damages, though that will drop to $59,000 if U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga agrees with the jury Milagro qualifies as a media defendant and dismisses the defamation claim because Megan’s lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, didn’t notify her before they sued her.

Milagro’s total amount due could increase substantially, however, because the sexual depiction claim allows Megan to recoup attorney fees.

If you are more interested in Megan Thee Stallion's courtroom outfits, she posted each of them at her IG page: 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Megan Thee Stallion (@theestallion)

Ghost Candidates and the $14 billion Drop

By John R. Byrne

Securities lawsuits can sometimes be dry. Not this one. In Jastram v. NextEra Energy, Inc., the plaintiffs' class action complaint contained some fairly unusual (and Pelican Brief-esque allegations)--a  utility company allegedly bankrolling ghost political candidates, surveilling reporters, and buying influence in local media. Though the utility company (NextEra Energy, Inc.) initially denied the allegations, its leadership later, according to the Eleventh Circuit, "began to backpedal." On Jan. 25, 2023, the company filed unscheduled disclosures and abruptly parted with its CEO. The same day? The company's stock plunged 8.7 percent, wiping out $14 billion-plus in market cap. Taken together, the Court said, the complaint's allegations were enough to plead loss causation.

If you handle securities cases, this is a must-read. Opinion here. 

A Tale of Two Voting Rights Act Cases

By John R. Byrne

Three-judge panels aren't just reserved for the courts of appeal. You can sometimes get them at the district court level. One common example is when plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of congressional or statewide legislative maps as racial gerrymandered under the Equal Protection Clause. In such a case, the chief judge of the federal appellate court appoints two judges to sit on a panel with the district judge who originally drew the case (one of the two "added" judges must be a circuit court judge).

That’s how a three-judge panel consisting of Judge Becerra, Judge Ruiz, and Circuit Judge Britt Grant ended up deciding whether there was enough evidence to send a racial-gerrymandering challenge to trial in Cubanos Pa’lante v. Florida House of Representatives. Judge Becerra had the case first, and Chief Judge Pryor designated Judges Ruiz and Grant to join her. Ultimately, the panel held there was sufficient evidence for a factfinder to conclude that “race played a predominant role in the drawing of” four of the eight challenged district (seven state-house districts and one congressional district). Decision here.

So, those three judges were on the same page. Now let me introduce you to another recent Voting Rights Act. This one's from Texas, LULAC v. Abbott, and also dealt with racial gerrymandering claims. No such harmony here. The circuit judge appointed to sit on that panel, Judge Jerry E. Smith, issued a blistering dissent from the panel's issuing of a preliminary injunction. That decision here. 

Hard to really describe the intensity of this dissent. Here are a few quotes:

"In my 37 years on the federal bench, this is the most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved."

"The main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the People of Texas and the Rule of Law."

"When I was a newer on the bench, a friend asked me, 'Now that you’ve been a judge for a few years, do you have any particular advice?' I replied, 'Always sit with your back to the wall.'"

Whoa. 

Curious whether the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit should have foreseen that combustible panel mix coming. 

More Megan Thee Stallion

Meghann Cuniff has everything Megan Thee Stallion, the defamation trial before Judge Altonaga.  Closing arguments will be tomorrow (Monday).

Here's the latest -- Megan is on the stand and Miami's Jeremy McLymont is crossing (John O'Sullivan from Quinn put her on):

Jeremy McLymont, an attorney in Miami, Florida, focused on Megan’s testimony that she was not drunk and that she had nerve damage in her left foot, despite a doctor’s report that said there was no “nerve involvement” in her left foot.

He also emphasized eyewitness Sean Kelly’s testimony about two women fighting as he implies Megan lied when she testified Lanez shot her and implies that the gunfire came from her now-former friend Kelsey Harris as Milagro has contended.

McLymont also implied Megan is wrongly accusing Milagro when Megan says Lanez told Milagro to say Megan is an alcoholic.

“That’s your opinion?” McLymont asked.

“Yes,” Megan answered.

“It’s not a proven fact, right?” McLymont asked.

“It can’t be proven because we can’t see the messages,” Megan said, referring to the thousands of texts deleted by Milagro in violation of a legal notice.

“It’s not a proven fact, but you’re stating it as though it’s a fact?” McLymont asked.

“Just like Milagro stated that it’s a fact that I lied about Tory shooting me,” Megan answered.

“So are you defaming Tory Lanez and Milagro Cooper when you say that it’s your opinion that Milagro Cooper is getting information from Tory Lanez?” McLymont asked.

“No, I’m not defaming her or him,” Megan answered.

“Alright. But Ms. Cooper is defaming you when she gives her opinion?” McLymont asked.

“Yes, and presents it as facts,” Megan answered.

Megan’s lawyers from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP didn’t object to her being asked to give a legal conclusion.

McLymont, a licensed attorney in Florida since 2018, took a slow and conversational approach to his cross-examination of Megan. At one point, he implied Megan is suing Milagro out of jealousy, emphasizing that Milagro “has some sort of relationship with Tory Lanez.”

“You do not like that?” McLymont asked.

“I don’t care about whatever you’re trying to ask me. What I care about is Tory giving this woman information to say about me, to lie about me, about the trial. That’s what I care about,” Megan answered.

McLymont at one point told Megan, “So I’m asking questions. All I need is just simple answers” when Megan asked what he was getting at, but he mostly didn’t push back when Megan responded with her own questions. He said rappers Meek Mill and Drake support Lanez and Megan asked, “Are you saying that make it OK” for Milagro to harass her.

“No, I just want to make sure that we’re actually pinpointing the cause of any emotional distress” and not blaming it on Milagro, McLymont told Megan.

McLymont described Milagro as someone who “has the least amount of influence,” and Megan asked why he thinks that.

“Is it because she’s a woman and the rest of everybody is a man?” Megan asked.

“Well, she’s not famous, right?” McLymont answered.

Megan said Milagro is famous “for talking crap about me online.”

McLymont and Megan were discussing Milagro’s level of fame when U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga said, “Mr. McLymont, you’re an attorney” and told him to stop speaking when the witness speaks.

“I’ve never heard of that, judge,” McLymont said.

The judge chuckled and said, “I’m telling you that.”