(10-23-2013 11:22 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 08:50 PM)Hou_Hater Wrote:  His bio says undergrad at Rice and "R" Association member

http://jgl-law.com/bruse.php

He earned football letters in 1983-84.

The September 2, 1983, Thresher introduced him in that season's team preview article:

Quote:Tackles: Bruse Loyd is a junior transfer from Northeast Junior College near Memphis, Tenessee (sic). He figures to solidfy Rice's offensive line.

He later moved to guard, as mentioned in thie 1984 season's Thresher preview:

Quote:Guards: Russell Moses (54) will probably fill the left guard position, while Bruse Loyd (63), a senior who played tackle early last year, and Steve Lister (71) continue to fight for the right guard position. Lister has the edge there.

I think the most pertinent aspect of the article is caught in the action photo.

What a mountain over a molehill. Surely, it was sloppy professional practice by the plaintiff's lawyer, but I don't think any deceit was involved. When you are in a hole, it's best to stop digging. Loyd made a embarrassing error, but at least he owned up to it quickly. No harm seems to have come from it.

My cursory, rough understanding is that the plaintiffs are upset they missed their wedding in Cozumel because they were expecting the boat to take them there. The boat was stuck out at sea, so they are claiming a breach of contract and seeking reimbursement for the wedding costs. Why didn't they then fly to the wedding? While the cruise line should reimburse the cost of their ticket, it seems a shaky case to claim other expenses from the delay. If I suffer a delay from a Southwest flight being grounded due to a mechanical problem, I can't exactly claim the losses from missing an important meeting. I suspect there must be plenty of precedent in the law on this matter.

Anyway, the case seems very weak, and perhaps Loyd was sleeping on it precisely because it was a dog of a case. It doesn't excuse the sloppiness, but it may better explain the circumstances.

(10-24-2013 12:15 PM)ruowls Wrote:  I think the most pertinent aspect of the article is caught in the action photo.

Of course you do

(10-24-2013 01:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 12:15 PM)ruowls Wrote:  I think the most pertinent aspect of the article is caught in the action photo.

Of course you do

I don't know. I don't think that is Hambone on the sideline in the background...

(10-24-2013 10:25 AM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 09:36 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  First of all, I don't know that he is lying to anyone. You posited that hypothesis to justify your position that what he is doing is commendable - i.e. covering up his client's duplicity. .

No, sir, that is NOT what I said. Your revision notwithstanding, he is either telling the truth, which IS commendable whether you think it should be or not, or providing cover for his client in a manner that meets his ethical obligations.

(10-24-2013 09:36 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  Second, I don't know what he had to tell the court to justify the amendment. Sometimes you need to obtain leave to do so. If not, someone will still have to explain to a factfinder the changing story. If the attorney does that in the way he has spoken publicly, he may be misleading the court.

So you acknowledge that you don't know if the attorney has misled anyone, much less the court while calling for sanctions because in your worst possible case scenario he might have misled a reporter?

(10-24-2013 09:36 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  Third, if he is being honest, that is good, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he screwed up a central allegation in the petition through neglect. I dispute your contention that lawyers should not act forthrightly to admit mistakes because they will be criticized for them. Sometimes, criticism is earned and deserved.

Good to see you acknowledge that being honest is good. Bad to see that you have found neglect without knowing most of the facts. Perhaps knowing what happened should be a prerequisite to determining if negligence exists? I think so. And once again you misread what I wrote - I did NOT say lawyers SHOULD not act forthrightly because they could be criticized. I said some do. They shouldn't but they do. That is simple reality. And your rush to judgment here is every bit as bad as the rush to crucify the Duke lacrosse team when a prosecutor made the same mistake you are making - prejudging what happened instead of finding out the facts. Yes, criticism is sometimes earned and deserved. But lets save it for when all the facts are known and criticism has in fact been earned. Here you haven't even considered, much less heard, "the defendant's story". So much for the Court's instruction to jurors to wait until they have heard all the evidence to form an opinion - you're there and the story isn't even half out and may never be! And for that, I do think that criticism is deserved. Does Bruse deserve criticism? It appears so. For what? We don't yet know. Believing his client and not checking it further? Rushing to meet a statute of limitations bar date when a client comes in and says, "Remember that case I talked to you about a year ago? I want to pursue it now."? Maybe. I don't know. And that is the whole point - we don't know and premature judgment isn't going to make it any better.

(10-24-2013 09:36 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  Finally, you claim to have seen cases where very good cases were torpedoed when lawyers were less than honest and got caught, getting their clients sanctioned and then bailing out on them. If the lawyer was less than honest, he deserves sanctions but not necessarily the client. You are claiming that your friend in this case is lying to save his client. We will just have to disagree. I really don't think I am being "holier than thou."

I agree with you that the cases where lawyers were less than honest and got their clients sanctions are cases where the lawyers deserved sanctions. Sometimes the client deserved sanctions too, but in the more egregious instances I've seen, the client did not, but bore them anyway. Your apparent wish to sanction the lawyer where it is not clear that he deserves sanctions doesn't make the bad decisions to sanction clients that did not deserve it in other cases right. They have no bearing on what is right in this case. But it does show that the truth is not always readily apparent from a telling from one side alone.

By the way, I never called you a "holier than thou lawyer". I said, "This lawyer (took action) at the risk of some overly aggressive, self appointed, holier than thou lawyer who claims to have never made a mistake calling for his head and license." If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, then recognize that the risk is real, even if it isn't a risk coming from you.

I take it from your reaction that you have never seen pleadings where factual recitations are made that later prove to be untenable, resulting in amended pleadings or summary judgment motions? That suggests you are not involved in litigation much, if at all, because that is a fairly common occurrence and precisely why the discovery process exists - to determine what the truth and facts really are. Any good trial lawyer will tell you that in every case, there is the Plaintiff's truth, the Defendant's truth, and somewhere in the middle, the truth as determined by the fact finder.

This discussion is getting circular. First, your suggestion that he is "providing cover" for his client is a polite way of saying he is lying for him. Second, assuming he is not lying (and I, unlike you, would never assume that he has lied or that such is "commendable"), the lawyer's own words place the need for the amendment on his own negligence. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply when the defendant confesses. Third, the fact that allegations in pleadings often turn out to be incorrect (as that is what trials are for) does not in any manner excuse an attorney's obligations to get his client's story straight in the petition. You are attempting to conflate the litigation process with your friend's failure to accurately plead his client's case.

I've been litigating for about 34 years and have never seen this situation before. Again, I don't think your friend should be crucified. As another pointed out, he apparently amended the petition quickly after the news media called him out on it. But he can and should be criticized for not doing his job properly.

(10-24-2013 06:03 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  The standard of care here in preparing a petition which all lawyers should know from both law school and whatever ethical CLE requirements they have to meet (and as a member of both the Texas and Louisiana Bars I have to comply with both) is pretty much set forth in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

. . .

Yes, but Rule 11 also requires that before a motion for sanctions is filed with the court, the offending attorney be provided notice and given an opportunity to amend or withdraw the offending filing. The court could call for a show cause hearing, but it is very unlikely to do that where the party has already amended the filing.

So, he screwed up, he fixed it, and it's not even a screw up that will lead to anything other than the bad press he got.

(10-24-2013 11:26 AM)Owl Movement Wrote:  No doubt it was a screw-up by plaintiff's counsel. The best practice would be to have your clients read and review the Petition before it is filed, to avoid embarrassments such as this one.

But, an Amended Petition appears to have been filed within a week of the original filing, thus the (egregious) mistake was corrected before defendant had to file an Answer. So, nobody appears to have been harmed by the error.

The amended lawsuit may well lack any legal merit, but that is a different question, and one that defendant will have a fair opportunity to address.

Having filed state court Petitions and many federal court Complaints on behalf of plaintiffs, my take on the screw-up of my fellow Rice alum as reported in the article: judge not lest ye be judged.

I agree with your first point which has always been my practice. Second, it is good that he acted quickly to cure his own error. Third, while he did screw up, this whole discussion started when it was suggested that his explanation for the screwup was to "provide cover" for his client. That I have no hesitation in judging.

(10-24-2013 02:32 PM)texd Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 06:03 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  The standard of care here in preparing a petition which all lawyers should know from both law school and whatever ethical CLE requirements they have to meet (and as a member of both the Texas and Louisiana Bars I have to comply with both) is pretty much set forth in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

. . .

Yes, but Rule 11 also requires that before a motion for sanctions is filed with the court, the offending attorney be provided notice and given an opportunity to amend or withdraw the offending filing. The court could call for a show cause hearing, but it is very unlikely to do that where the party has already amended the filing.

So, he screwed up, he fixed it, and it's not even a screw up that will lead to anything other than the bad press he got.

This is why we should read the whole thread. The difficulty lies in the explanation for the screw-up, not the screw up itself, which is merely negiigence. If the lawyer made the error as described, no problem. But if in actuality the client lied to him and he is covering for the client, any such representations to the court would be heinous.

But is he actually representing ANYTHING to the court about the reason for amending his original filing? An amended filing doesn't require his "I screwed up the previous one" explanation. The only reason this would even come into play would be if there were actually a hearing or an exchange of briefs on the question of sanctions.

(10-24-2013 02:16 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  I don't know. I don't think that is Hambone on the sideline in the background...

It's not. I'm right behind him just off frame... the snap was a bit high

(10-24-2013 02:41 PM)texd Wrote:  But is he actually representing ANYTHING to the court about the reason for amending his original filing? An amended filing doesn't require his "I screwed up the previous one" explanation. The only reason this would even come into play would be if there were actually a hearing or an exchange of briefs on the question of sanctions.

You could be right. Sometimes leave of court is not not required to file an amendment. We really don't know what happened but are only dealing with the supposition that the lawyer lied to protect his client. But what happens when the other side asks for an explanation as to the change, either in an interrogatory or a deposition? What are the implications if the plaintiff answers "My lawyer screwed up" but the lawyer knows that is a lie?

(10-24-2013 03:00 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 02:41 PM)texd Wrote:  But is he actually representing ANYTHING to the court about the reason for amending his original filing? An amended filing doesn't require his "I screwed up the previous one" explanation. The only reason this would even come into play would be if there were actually a hearing or an exchange of briefs on the question of sanctions.

You could be right. Sometimes leave of court is not not required to file an amendment. We really don't know what happened but are only dealing with the supposition that the lawyer lied to protect his client. But what happens when the other side asks for an explanation as to the change, either in an interrogatory or a deposition? What are the implications if the plaintiff answers "My lawyer screwed up" but the lawyer knows that is a lie?

In federal court you usually get a chance to amend w/out leave one time. Anyone have O'Connor's for TX?

(10-24-2013 03:00 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 02:41 PM)texd Wrote:  But is he actually representing ANYTHING to the court about the reason for amending his original filing? An amended filing doesn't require his "I screwed up the previous one" explanation. The only reason this would even come into play would be if there were actually a hearing or an exchange of briefs on the question of sanctions.

You could be right. Sometimes leave of court is not not required to file an amendment. We really don't know what happened but are only dealing with the supposition that the lawyer lied to protect his client. But what happens when the other side asks for an explanation as to the change, either in an interrogatory or a deposition? What are the implications if the plaintiff answers "My lawyer screwed up" but the lawyer knows that is a lie?

Why are we debating a hypothetical that probably has no basis in fact? Is there some reason you want to continue the witch hunt here? He screwed up, he admitted it and corrected it, all before anybody said anything about it. End of non-story!

By the way, a simple docket search reflects the case was filed in Galveston on a Thursday, with the amended complaint filed the following Tuesday. Under FRCP Rule 15(a)(1), which as a long time litigator I presume you are familiar with, "A party may amend its pleadings once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it..." No reason required. Just amend it and file it. Your hypothetical "sometimes leave is required" is nothing more than a statement in a public forum speculating about what might have occurred when you clearly have an easy way to check your facts. Unlike the lawyer who filed the pleadings, you don't have the lawsuit related exceptions to libel and slander to hide behind on this board. Knowing Bruse, I doubt he would even give any serious thought to suing you over your gross mischaracterizations and irresponsible lack of fact checking and subsequent lack of acknowledgment that you got your facts wrong when screaming for sanctions. You called for the lawyer's license; should yours be in jeopardy for your comments here too? What's good for the goose is good for the gander you know!

(10-24-2013 03:25 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 03:00 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 02:41 PM)texd Wrote:  But is he actually representing ANYTHING to the court about the reason for amending his original filing? An amended filing doesn't require his "I screwed up the previous one" explanation. The only reason this would even come into play would be if there were actually a hearing or an exchange of briefs on the question of sanctions.

You could be right. Sometimes leave of court is not not required to file an amendment. We really don't know what happened but are only dealing with the supposition that the lawyer lied to protect his client. But what happens when the other side asks for an explanation as to the change, either in an interrogatory or a deposition? What are the implications if the plaintiff answers "My lawyer screwed up" but the lawyer knows that is a lie?

Why are we debating a hypothetical that probably has no basis in fact? Is there some reason you want to continue the witch hunt here? He screwed up, he admitted it and corrected it, all before anybody said anything about it. End of non-story!

By the way, a simple docket search reflects the case was filed in Galveston on a Thursday, with the amended complaint filed the following Tuesday. Under FRCP Rule 15(a)(1), which as a long time litigator I presume you are familiar with, "A party may amend its pleadings once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it..." No reason required. Just amend it and file it. Your hypothetical "sometimes leave is required" is nothing more than a statement in a public forum speculating about what might have occurred when you clearly have an easy way to check your facts. Unlike the lawyer who filed the pleadings, you don't have the lawsuit related exceptions to libel and slander to hide behind on this board. Knowing Bruse, I doubt he would even give any serious thought to suing you over your gross mischaracterizations and irresponsible lack of fact checking and subsequent lack of acknowledgment that you got your facts wrong when screaming for sanctions. You called for the lawyer's license; should yours be in jeopardy for your comments here too? What's good for the goose is good for the gander you know!

Well, folks, I thought I had seen it all with Mr. Doc comparing this case to the Duke lacrosse scandal. Boy, was I wrong. Now he's gone off the rails and is claiming that Bruse could (but probably won't "give any serious thought") sue a message board member. Hahahahhahahahahah

I'm beginning to think Mr. Doc has been litigating in hotbeds (e.g. Puerto Rico, Alaska, Guam) for his entire career.

(10-24-2013 03:41 PM)Hou_Hater Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 03:25 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 03:00 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 02:41 PM)texd Wrote:  But is he actually representing ANYTHING to the court about the reason for amending his original filing? An amended filing doesn't require his "I screwed up the previous one" explanation. The only reason this would even come into play would be if there were actually a hearing or an exchange of briefs on the question of sanctions.

You could be right. Sometimes leave of court is not not required to file an amendment. We really don't know what happened but are only dealing with the supposition that the lawyer lied to protect his client. But what happens when the other side asks for an explanation as to the change, either in an interrogatory or a deposition? What are the implications if the plaintiff answers "My lawyer screwed up" but the lawyer knows that is a lie?

Why are we debating a hypothetical that probably has no basis in fact? Is there some reason you want to continue the witch hunt here? He screwed up, he admitted it and corrected it, all before anybody said anything about it. End of non-story!

By the way, a simple docket search reflects the case was filed in Galveston on a Thursday, with the amended complaint filed the following Tuesday. Under FRCP Rule 15(a)(1), which as a long time litigator I presume you are familiar with, "A party may amend its pleadings once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it..." No reason required. Just amend it and file it. Your hypothetical "sometimes leave is required" is nothing more than a statement in a public forum speculating about what might have occurred when you clearly have an easy way to check your facts. Unlike the lawyer who filed the pleadings, you don't have the lawsuit related exceptions to libel and slander to hide behind on this board. Knowing Bruse, I doubt he would even give any serious thought to suing you over your gross mischaracterizations and irresponsible lack of fact checking and subsequent lack of acknowledgment that you got your facts wrong when screaming for sanctions. You called for the lawyer's license; should yours be in jeopardy for your comments here too? What's good for the goose is good for the gander you know!

Well, folks, I thought I had seen it all with Mr. Doc comparing this case to the Duke lacrosse scandal. Boy, was I wrong. Now he's gone off the rails and is claiming that Bruse could (but probably won't "give any serious thought") sue a message board member. Hahahahhahahahahah

I'm beginning to think Mr. Doc has been litigating in hotbeds (e.g. Puerto Rico, Alaska, Guam) for his entire career.

To the contrary hater, I have spent my entire career litigating in federal courts, with periodic forays into international tribunals.* As a result, I recognize that suing a cruiseline probably involves maritime claims which are federal in nature. That led to a simply federal docket search to find the case at issue. And because it is pending in federal court, I cited the federal rule relating to amending pleadings instead of suggesting that someone look at a treatise that would tell them about Texas state court rules on amended pleadings. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us on your clearly vast litigation experience? Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on how the rush to judgment in this string differs from the rush to judgment against the Duke lacrosse case? Perhaps you'd even like to enlighten us with your reasons why a suit couldn't be filed for libel and slander, regardless of whether it was likely to prevail? And please tell us why such a suit should be seriously considered! I'm sure we are all just waiting with bated breath for you to extol to us your theories so that we can learn from your clearly superior legal acumen.**

* If you had simply taken the initiative to click the link in my signature that would take you to my firm's webpage, you would have known that.

**Just in case you didn't figure it out, this was tongue in cheek and a wee bit sarcastic.

Check Out Section 13. Seesh.

http://m.carnival.com/about-carnival/leg...tract.aspx

(10-24-2013 03:53 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 03:41 PM)Hou_Hater Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 03:25 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 03:00 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 02:41 PM)texd Wrote:  But is he actually representing ANYTHING to the court about the reason for amending his original filing? An amended filing doesn't require his "I screwed up the previous one" explanation. The only reason this would even come into play would be if there were actually a hearing or an exchange of briefs on the question of sanctions.

You could be right. Sometimes leave of court is not not required to file an amendment. We really don't know what happened but are only dealing with the supposition that the lawyer lied to protect his client. But what happens when the other side asks for an explanation as to the change, either in an interrogatory or a deposition? What are the implications if the plaintiff answers "My lawyer screwed up" but the lawyer knows that is a lie?

Why are we debating a hypothetical that probably has no basis in fact? Is there some reason you want to continue the witch hunt here? He screwed up, he admitted it and corrected it, all before anybody said anything about it. End of non-story!

By the way, a simple docket search reflects the case was filed in Galveston on a Thursday, with the amended complaint filed the following Tuesday. Under FRCP Rule 15(a)(1), which as a long time litigator I presume you are familiar with, "A party may amend its pleadings once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it..." No reason required. Just amend it and file it. Your hypothetical "sometimes leave is required" is nothing more than a statement in a public forum speculating about what might have occurred when you clearly have an easy way to check your facts. Unlike the lawyer who filed the pleadings, you don't have the lawsuit related exceptions to libel and slander to hide behind on this board. Knowing Bruse, I doubt he would even give any serious thought to suing you over your gross mischaracterizations and irresponsible lack of fact checking and subsequent lack of acknowledgment that you got your facts wrong when screaming for sanctions. You called for the lawyer's license; should yours be in jeopardy for your comments here too? What's good for the goose is good for the gander you know!

Well, folks, I thought I had seen it all with Mr. Doc comparing this case to the Duke lacrosse scandal. Boy, was I wrong. Now he's gone off the rails and is claiming that Bruse could (but probably won't "give any serious thought") sue a message board member. Hahahahhahahahahah

I'm beginning to think Mr. Doc has been litigating in hotbeds (e.g. Puerto Rico, Alaska, Guam) for his entire career.

To the contrary hater, I have spent my entire career litigating in federal courts, with periodic forays into international tribunals.* As a result, I recognize that suing a cruiseline probably involves maritime claims which are federal in nature. That led to a simply federal docket search to find the case at issue. And because it is pending in federal court, I cited the federal rule relating to amending pleadings instead of suggesting that someone look at a treatise that would tell them about Texas state court rules on amended pleadings. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us on your clearly vast litigation experience? Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on how the rush to judgment in this string differs from the rush to judgment against the Duke lacrosse case? Perhaps you'd even like to enlighten us with your reasons why a suit couldn't be filed for libel and slander, regardless of whether it was likely to prevail? And please tell us why such a suit should be seriously considered! I'm sure we are all just waiting with bated breath for you to extol to us your theories so that we can learn from your clearly superior legal acumen.**

* If you had simply taken the initiative to click the link in my signature that would take you to my firm's webpage, you would have known that.

**Just in case you didn't figure it out, this was tongue in cheek and a wee bit sarcastic.

I haven't seen the Amended Complaint but I'm curious how the Contractual Venue provisions that require litigation be filed in the Southern District of Florida were negated. See my post above.

(10-24-2013 04:15 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I haven't seen the Amended Complaint but I'm curious how the Contractual Venue provisions that require litigation be filed in the Southern District of Florida were negated. See my post above.

I'd start by looking at who filed the suit.

(10-24-2013 04:15 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I haven't seen the Amended Complaint but I'm curious how the Contractual Venue provisions that require litigation be filed in the Southern District of Florida were negated. See my post above.

I haven't looked either, but that is obviously waivable by the defendant. If the defendant chooses not to waive it, the remedy is likely to be a transfer to the S.D. Fl. (unless there is an overriding position that the clause isn't enforceable for some reason, a point that I have NOT done any research on and don't know if it has any merit). Of course it could simply be answered with an attendant waiver so it isn't an issue at all. We just don't know at this point, do we. Regardless, filing it in Galveston could be a litigation strategy that has merit. In short, it may not have been negated. Yet.