Wednesday, August 5, 2015

9th Circ. Sanctions Atty With ‘Propensity For Distortion'

That's the headline of a Law360 story here about sanctions imposed by the Z-panel: Judges KoZinski, PaeZ, and BerZon, in Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club LLC for pursuing a frivolous appeal:
"Flynn’s conduct has been unprofessional throughout the proceedings," the opinion states.
For example, the panel said, Flynn offered as evidence two emails purportedly obtained from Blixseth’s ex-wife’s account without mentioning that the emails were already shown to be forgeries in a separate case.
"This omission is an unreasonable and irresponsible breach of Flynn’s 'duty of good faith and candor in dealing with the judiciary,'" the Ninth Circuit said.
Image result for brought to you by the letter z
These sanctions brought to you by the letter Z.

Blixseth and Flynn were each ordered to pay the court clerk $500 in damages as reimbursement for costs incurred in this "frivolous and bad-faith appeal" and were also ordered to pay the other parties' attorneys' fees and costs in defending against the appeal.

Prof. Martin weighs in on Blixseth here.
[See also Jailed Already, Blixseth Sanctioned by Appeals Court]

In today's DJ, Myron Moskovitz offers Be Aggressively Reasonable in Your Briefs, which begins:
Most litigators have no trouble being aggressive. But they think being reasonable is the opposite of being aggressive. It isn't. You can do both. And doing both pays off: It helps you win. 
He offers the following "ways to show that you are reasonable":
1 - "Don't ignore facts or cases that hurt you. Deal with them up front."
2 - "Use adjectives sparingly."
3 - "Do not overstate points in your favor. Understatement can be very effective. Call your opponent's argument 'puzzling' or 'mistaken' rather than 'absurd' or 'ridiculous.' "
4- Do not overuse emphasis. Don't do it too often, and don't do it LIKE THIS! Let me count the ways: 1: All caps. 2. Bold. 3. Underline. 4. Italics. 5. Ending with an exclamation point.

Also today: 2/5 finds another deliciously untimely appeal, here. This one's premised on the 180-day time limit from entry of an anti-SLAPP order.

Finally, from the peanut gallery, a reader submits the following amusing(?) appellate docket entry:

for non-
AOB for [Appellant] -
not bound,
no covers,
not enough copies,
no service to trial & supreme crts,
orig signatures needed
& cert of word count must be signed
"Game on" for submission of even better ones!