John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm files Motion to Strike Howard K. Stern’s Response in Opposition to Motion for Leave to file Appeal!
Posted by: Rose in All Things Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith, Celebrity Trials, Debunking the myths on ALL cases related to Anna Nicole, High Proflie Trials, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, Krista Barth, Lin Wood, The John O'Quinn Law Firm
This is getting strange; you have to wonder if Roberta Mandel who is board certified I believe in Appellate law, is saying that the clerk of the Florida Southern District Court goofed.
On September 2, Roberta Mandel filed a Motion to Strike Howard K. Stern’s Response to John O’Quinn Motion for Leave (permission) to file an interlocutory appeal on the Judge’s Ruling. At question, it appears, is that the Florida Court ruled it had jurisdiction regarding all of the matters presented to the Court in the previous filings, memorandum of laws and hearing on all of O’Quinn and his law firm Motions to Dismiss for numerous reasons.
I have loaded up the docket report for all of you to read as this left me scratching my head. Is this a screw up on the clerk of the court and scanning the papers as they were filed? The docket report shows that the court was asking that Howard K. Stern’s Response (all responses) be due to the court by August 28, which Stern’s legal team met. Now O’Quinn’s Florida’s team is asking the Response that the docket showed was due by August 28 be stricken (thrown out) as “unauthorized” and once again the clerk of the court is saying that Stern’s attorneys need to reply by September 19, to this newest filing.
Roberta Mandel is a highly rated appellate lawyer, so is she saying the court or the clerk of court is screwing up and does not know what is happening; is she saying the electronic filing system has some major errors in what it is sending the other lawyers time lines at the time of fling? Alternatively, is she doing what her client is asking and is this part of that “death by a 1,000 cuts” that Lin Wood mentioned during an interview?
Let’s hope it is one of the first two and not the third or I would think the Magistrate and/or Judge is not going to be a happy camper. If the court did indeed set a date of August 28 as a Response deadline for Sterm’s lawyers and now September 19, again asking Stern’s lawyers to file responses, and it was the right thing for the clerk of court to ask to be submitted by a certain date.
I have read through the sections of 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) and the Appellate rule 5(a) and I don’t see where they are getting this from but then that is why you have a board certified appellate lawyer on the teams to address this when it gets to this level.
That leaves the question; will O’Quinn and the law firm now ask that the Magistrate ruling on August 29 be appealed as well?
Read through the latest filing and the docket report and tell us what you think is going on.
Yes, we will have an article up after I can read the 65-page ruling of the Magistrate on August 29, and compare it to the previous filings to get a good idea on what the Magistrate is ruling on the entire discovery that was before him to decide so the case could move forward.
The password protected blog comments for this article for regular posting members.
©Rose Turner
September 3, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, Krista Barth, Lin Wood, Roberta Mandale, The O'Quinn Law Firm
Entries (RSS)
MY OPINION—–The judge better be on top of this,no telling what OQ and his money is up to.
I don’t understand this. What are they trying to do here?
Rose is this connected to the appeal by them re your story 11th August 2008 ?
I believe that they are saying The Interlocutory Appeals Act of 1958, Section 1292 (b) of the US Code… has a ‘bilevel’ (two-part) procedure. They want to STALL these rulings by the FL Court IMO. TX wants the Appellate Court (Jurisdiction) to review all of the non-final orders before proceeding any further.
When HKS filed a response to this Appellate Review they are stating that there is “absolutely no provision” under the Act listed in the first line of this comment.
TX is stating that HKS should wait until this jurisdiction grants permission to appeal, then TX has 10 days to pay the appeal fees. THEN HKS has permission to file a response.
OMG! Since when has the TX team decided to start following the law? LOL
It is NO big deal that I can see… a stall tactic of 2 - 3 weeks at best.
(TX wants to get the permission of appeal order, serve HKS, then HKS can file a response or a cross-petition (I assume also a permission to appeal would be the cross…)
That is how I am understanding the ‘Motion to Strike’.
Oh, I just thought of something…
If the Appellate Court takes months to hear this case for example…
it would be 2 -3 weeks after the decision by the Appellate Court.
IMO TX would like this case to be in the Courts about as long as the Marshall Litigation!
Bet I agree with you that is why all the stalling tactics we have all seen.A lot of this could have been avoided especially in regards to O’Q statements which we all heard and he knows he said but now won’t admit to it.Seems to me first he says no one should or would believe him than says they should Doesn’t make a lot of sense unless they are stalling for time and to cause more finicial problems.I think anyone that reads these papers can see what the O’Q team is up to.
Sorry Beth
OMG I have to go back to school. This is confusing to me. But what I think I’m getting out of this is, JUST ANOTHER CAT AND MOUSE GAME? Quinn trying to keep this back and forth in the courts? Stall for more time with paper work?
#4 Beth,
You got it another STALL TACTIC! This is just like O’Quinn every little jot and tittle for Howard, BUT LET ALL O’Q'S ERRORS ALONE. Mr. DOUBLE STANDARD IS AT IT AGAIN.
Hey Sunflower! Good to see your post! Hope you’ve been doing well.
That is an excellent description of O’Quinn! “Mr. DOUBLE STANDARD”
Well, I am off for a bit! Sunflower try to pop into chat on Sunday evening… I think Rose said; 6:00 pm PT, 8:00 pm blog time, 9:00pm eastern…
It would be nice to chat w/ you!
Kate, sorry just got your message. I replied.
Some of you are mix about what going on with O”Q.I cannot fallow oufff! is that mean the 65 pages are not correcT? Or void?
Saves, I am not quite sure what you are asking…
On page 64 (of the 65 pgs.) It lists 1 - 5 orders. (#6 is on the last page)
1) Defendant (O’Q) Protective Order [Some requests were granted, some were not]
2) Plaintiff (Stern) and so on (3,4,5, & 6)… in the 1 request by the Plaintiff & the 5 requests by the Defendant some issues were ordered by the Judge and some were not.
The Court will not award attorney’s fees to either party at this time.
If TX does NOT respond in time or follow the rules of the Court later on down the road… the Judge can order that TX pay HKS’s attorney for the ‘unnecessary time’ he had to deal with their non-compliance.
So the 65 pages are an EXPLAINATION of why the Judge Ordered what he did on the last two pages.
The 65 page order is correct.
Thanks Beth I was so mix!