Monday, October 20, 2008

Feds: We have rules, you know

The Judge in the Landis Federal case is being a stickler:

10/17/200820 MINUTES - IN CHAMBERS by Judge Percy Anderson: Before the Court is an "Amended Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award" filed by plaintiff Floyd Landis 17 . The Court construes the Amended Motion as a Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award and will accept it, and the exhibits accompanying it 19 , for filing. Plaintiff also filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the Petition 18 . The Memorandum of Points and Authorities was not accompanied by a Notice of Motion as required by Local Rule 6-1. Because plaintiff has not filed a Notice of Motion, plaintiff has violated the Local Rules by failing to provide the required notice of the proposed hearing. The Court therefore strikes the Memorandum of Points and Authorities 18 . Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 10/20/2008)

Update: Sausage being made--

10/21/200821 NOTICE OF MOTION re MOTION to Vacate 1 Notice of Motion And Memorandum of Points and Authorities Filed in Support of Amended Motion/Petition to Vacate Arbitral Award [DKT #17] filed by Petitioner Floyd Landis. Motion set for hearing on 11/24/2008 at 01:30 PM before Judge Percy Anderson. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Amended Motion to Vacate Arbitral Award)(Worthington, Roger) (Entered: 10/21/2008)

See also the Docket.


Mike Solberg said...

Anybody who remembers "eyeballing" might like this:


TiGirl said...

OK, count me stupid...but will Floyd and his lawyers extraordinaire be able to refile again with the correct accompaniment?

The self-proclaimed village idiot,

TiGirl, formerly known as CalfeeGirl

(Got rid of the carbon, I like Titanium much more)

("Eightzero") said...

ummm.....isoterica involving the local rules. Not seeing anything here prohibiting a refiling with proper service. Probably requires resubmission of the filing fee. :-(

DR said...

"Eightzero" said
Probably requires resubmission of the filing fee.

Probably not, the judge "construes the Amended Motion as a Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award and will accept it."

If someone can tell us the difference between a "motion" and a "petition" in this context I'd love to hear it, especially in light of this:
and this

"Stickler" seems to be a good description.

daniel m (a/k/a Rant) said...


That is very addictive. And quite devilish. :-) And it makes a good point, too. said...

It was a little hard to follow DR's links. Having done so, he's asking why hizzoner insisted it be a "petition" when Title 9 seems to use "motion" exclusively:

TITLE 9 > CHAPTER 1 > § 6

§ 6. Application heard as motion

Any application to the court hereunder shall be made and heard in the manner provided by law for the making and hearing of motions, except as otherwise herein expressly provided.


TITLE 9 > CHAPTER 1 > § 12

§ 12. Notice of motions to vacate or modify; service; stay of proceedings

Notice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is filed or delivered. If the adverse party is a resident of the district within which the award was made, such service shall be made upon the adverse party or his attorney as prescribed by law for service of notice of motion in an action in the same court. If the adverse party shall be a nonresident then the notice of the application shall be served by the marshal of any district within which the adverse party may be found in like manner as other process of the court. For the purposes of the motion any judge who might make an order to stay the proceedings in an action brought in the same court may make an order, to be served with the notice of motion, staying the proceedings of the adverse party to enforce the award.

Heck if I know.


beeble said...

dr's links made clicky:

application as motion

motions to vacate

("Eightzero") said...

I'm not following at all. Seems like the memo of points of authorities wasn't accepted because just that one memo wasn't served with a motion on opposing counsel. I'm not familiar with this local practice rule - I recall simply adding a certificate of service on each filed document. It simply showed opposing counsel got a copy. *shrug* Different in this court, apparently. said...

Looks like it is repaired now.


("Eightzero") said...

Crikey, if only LNDD had been as careful with the frickin' samples as they now are with these pleadings. Can someone get Judge Anderson a lab coat and a goddam Isoprime manual and put him to work in France?

jrdbutcher said...

Nice post eightzero.

OTOH, this is why it's important to hire local counsel to at least read/approve your filings.