3d DCA Watch — Please Block Bill For This.

Gather round, children, the janitorial staff must have put a little something extra in the lukewarm warmed over cold bitter bad free coffee because we have a fully bunkerized Meaty Beaty Big and Bouncy edition of 3d DCA Watch coming your way right now:

Alvarado v. Bayshore Grove:

It has long been my contention that the only appropriate usage of the word “pretermit” is while playing Scrabble.

In footnote three, Judge Schwartz proves me right!

Hotel 71 v. Tutt:

Raise your hands if you believe (a) a non-moving party can be granted summary judgment; and (b) a non-moving party can be granted summary judgment without any advance notice to the party against whom summary judgment is entered. Judge Ramirez, tell us who’s right:

On appeal, Hotel 71 contends that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of Tutt because Tutt had not moved for summary judgment. We agree. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) provides that a summary judgment motion must “state with particularity the grounds upon which it is based” and must be served at least twenty days from the date on which the hearing is scheduled. The motion must also “specifically identify any affidavits, answers to interrogatories, admissions, depositions, and other materials as would be admissible in evidence . . . on which the movant relies.”

Rule 1.510(c) prevents ambush by allowing the nonmoving party to be prepared for issues that will be argued at the summary judgment hearing. See Casa Inv. Co., v. Nestor, 8 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Failure to comply with the rule deprives the opposing party “of the ability to both adequately respond and prepare for the summary judgment hearing.” Id. at 1221.

Ok Judge Schwartz, dissenting, you can put your hand down now.

Claridge H v. Claridge Hotel:

This is like studying for the Bar — raise your hands if you think a court can grant directed verdict to the plaintiff at the close of her case, without any evidence introduced into the record by the defendant?

We find that the trial court’s determination of the disputed issues in plaintiff’s favor—without first giving the defendant any opportunity to present its case—was error. Numerous cases hold that a directed verdict cannot be entered until each party has an opportunity to present relevant evidence in its case in chief.

(Bigfirmers, I hope you guys are billing for this.) BTW, it took me .9 hours to prepare today’s 3d DCA Watch.

By the 24/7 jetset calculations utilized by “premium-rate lawyers who work at large high-powered law firms” that also employ Georgetown grads, that means you should bill at least 6.7 hrs to review, analyze, and research this crappy blog post.

Don’t worry — Coke’s shareholders are dying to pay for this!