The OTHER Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Seitz’ Sanctions Order

A few of you have asked me to post the other motion for reconsideration filed on behalf of the lawyers recently sanctioned by Judge Seitz.

Pshaw I say.

I’d rather post the above video of Stevie Ray and Albert King going to town on “Stormy Monday.”

Alright alright, all you chronics and cheapos who can’t spare the 34 cents to download it directly from Pacer, here is the Scribd link to the aforesaid motion.

I like the tender and circumspect introduction:

Both Counsel and undersigned counsel hold this Court in the highest regard. It is precisely because of the respect Counsel and undersigned counsel have for this Honorable Court that they have chosen to file the instant motion. In light of this Court’s reputation for fairness, and strong desire to “get it right,” Counsel believe this Court will want to reconsider its Order – because neither of the two reasons for which it sanctioned Counsel are supported by the facts set forth in the record.

The Court’s sanctions order focused on the “blithe” and “cavalier” way in which plaintiff’s counsel — “almost in passing” belatedly make reference to the disputed releases.The motion for reconsideration says this is not so:

Weeks earlier, Counsel had addressed the releases in Plaintiffs’ Proposed Supplemental Complaint filed on July 10, 2009 [DE-188]. See Proposed Supplemental Complaint, ¶ 104. In fact, Count X sought reformation of the “various settlement papers” because the Plaintiffs were “mislead into signing a release.” Proposed Supplemental Complaint, ¶ 120. Moreover, the Proposed Supplemental Complaint alleged “[t]he scope of the releases were limited to the‘Accident’ which, on the face of the documents, do not release criminal conduct.” Id., ¶


Plaintiff’s counsel also take issue with their purported failure to cite relevant controlling 11th Circuit authority on Rule 60(b)(6):

The Court cited two cases in the order denying the Omnibus Motion: Rease v. AT&T Corp., 2009 WL 4897738 (11th Cir. 2009) and U.S. v. Real Property & Residence Located at Route 1, Box 111, Firetower Rd., 920 F.2d 788 (11th Cir. 1991). Counsel could not have cited Rease in the Omnibus Motion because the opinion was issued on December 21, 2009, after the Omnibus Motion and the Motion for Sanctions were fully briefed.

As to the latter Real Property case:

Thus, despite not citing Real Property (Firetower Rd.), Counsel correctly set forth the existing law in the Eleventh Circuit on Rule 60(b)(6), and expressly acknowledged the very issue upon which this Court denied the Omnibus Motion: “Normally ‘newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial,’ for which relief may be granted under Rule 60(b)(2), is not ‘any other reason’ justifying relief under clause (6) of the Rule.” Omnibus Motion at 9.

According to the docket, Judge Seitz held a hearing on the reconsideration motions on March 25.