WWTBAM Bored

Mine is the first case, starting a little more than 8 minutes into the video. --Bob

I was expecting comedy. The judge in the upper left panel looks like a slightly older Stephen Colbert.

jaybee wrote:I was expecting comedy. The judge in the upper left panel looks like a slightly older Stephen Colbert.

If you know the areas of law under discussion (particularly federal civil procedure and the Erie rule), you got comedy. The panel was feeding me softballs. --Bob

For those who may be interested, here is the denouement. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:For those who may be interested, here is the denouement. --Bob

You did better than I did before the Court of Appeals. But, at least I got my name in the Federal Reporter:

http://www.allcourtdata.com/law/case/lu ... nd/cxaxdl6

Can you summarize the decision in English? Were you happy with the outcome?

geoffil wrote:Can you summarize the decision in English? Were you happy with the outcome?

Yes, Bob was happy.

His clients won the case at the trial level on summary judgment, which means that the case never went before a jury, and the judge ruled in favor of Bob's clients as a matter of law. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit (which is one step below the Supreme Court and, in most instances, the final appeal for any federal case in California and a few other states) agreed with the trial court.

SSS,
Thanks for the explanation. If not every case gets to go before a panel, how do they select the cases? Is it expensive to appeal?

silverscreenselect wrote:

geoffil wrote:Can you summarize the decision in English? Were you happy with the outcome?

Yes, Bob was happy.

His clients won the case at the trial level on summary judgment, which means that the case never went before a jury, and the judge ruled in favor of Bob's clients as a matter of law. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit (which is one step below the Supreme Court and, in most instances, the final appeal for any federal case in California and a few other states) agreed with the trial court.

Um, that's the 9th Circuit, you're in the 11th Circuit.

geoffil wrote:Can you summarize the decision in English? Were you happy with the outcome?

Steve explained it pretty well (though it was the Ninth Circuit, not the Eleventh).

The trial judge was Judge Manuel Real, an LBJ appointee who still has not taken senior (semi-retired) status and is infamous around these parts for suffering by far the highest reversal rate in the California courts. By my lights, this case was both easy and routine. I'm convinced that the only reason the panel set it for oral argument at all (they had the option of deciding it on the papers) is that it was a Judge Real decision so they thought they needed to give it a closer look.

It's difficult to overstate just how bad my opponent's oral argument was. --Bob

Congratulations

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Congratulations

Thanks.

Here's the fun part. The same guy filed state-court lawsuits against my client as well. In those cases, he argued that res judicata wasn't fatal to his claims because the federal lawsuit was based exclusively on the written contract, whereas the state-court lawsuit asserted an oral contract.

The first of the state-court appeals is scheduled for argument December 8. I got my Request for Judicial Notice on file the day the Ninth Circuit filed its decision. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Congratulations

Thanks.

Here's the fun part. The same guy filed state-court lawsuits against my client as well. In those cases, he argued that res judicata wasn't fatal to his claims because the federal lawsuit was based exclusively on the written contract, whereas the state-court lawsuit asserted an oral contract.

The first of the state-court appeals is scheduled for argument December 8. I got my Request for Judicial Notice on file the day the Ninth Circuit filed its decision. --Bob

If there's a written contract wouldn't that supersede an oral contract? Or is that for a different matter?

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Congratulations

Thanks.

Here's the fun part. The same guy filed state-court lawsuits against my client as well. In those cases, he argued that res judicata wasn't fatal to his claims because the federal lawsuit was based exclusively on the written contract, whereas the state-court lawsuit asserted an oral contract.

The first of the state-court appeals is scheduled for argument December 8. I got my Request for Judicial Notice on file the day the Ninth Circuit filed its decision. --Bob

If there's a written contract wouldn't that supersede an oral contract? Or is that for a different matter?

There was no written contract. It was never signed. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Thanks.

Here's the fun part. The same guy filed state-court lawsuits against my client as well. In those cases, he argued that res judicata wasn't fatal to his claims because the federal lawsuit was based exclusively on the written contract, whereas the state-court lawsuit asserted an oral contract.

The first of the state-court appeals is scheduled for argument December 8. I got my Request for Judicial Notice on file the day the Ninth Circuit filed its decision. --Bob

If there's a written contract wouldn't that supersede an oral contract? Or is that for a different matter?

There was no written contract. It was never signed. --Bob

Oh, you said "the written contract", not whether there was a valid one.