Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

Judge Sua Sponte Asks for Stipulation

Made a motion. Judge Denied but stated he would consider if redemptionsong06/29/17
Too vague. jeffm06/30/17
What more would anyone need? Judge demanded something sought redemptionsong07/01/17
I don't know how improper it is; it's not like he's forcing therewillbeblood07/02/17
Did he say all this on the record? It seems improper to ask shitlawsf07/02/17
I think what some people are wanting to know is if a reasona superttthero07/02/17
Did my research yesterday (as I could not rely on JDU to do redemptionsong07/03/17
redemptionsong (Jun 29, 2017 - 10:56 pm)

Made a motion. Judge Denied but stated he would consider if represented party stipulated to X. The stipulation would change the entire dynamic, grant the OP part of the relief requested and likely provide a basis for a final denial of the motion. Improper precondition? Thoughts?

Reply Like (0)
jeffm (Jun 30, 2017 - 8:22 am)

Too vague.

Reply Like (0)
redemptionsong (Jul 1, 2017 - 9:52 am)

What more would anyone need? Judge demanded something sought by the plaintiff which would be a final remedy to part of the litigation in order to consider a motion. Essentially, the judge asked us to hand him a case not as it was but as he would like it to be. Note, we do contend that an error was made in granting initial ex parte relief.

Reply Like (0)
therewillbeblood (Jul 2, 2017 - 8:52 am)

I don't know how improper it is; it's not like he's forcing you to do it. Just consider it as a motion denied and move on.

Reply Like (0)
shitlawsf (Jul 2, 2017 - 9:52 am)

Did he say all this on the record? It seems improper to ask sua sponte for a stipulation as a condition to decide a motion one way or another. It smells like bias.

When you're stuck with a poor judge, all you can do is build a record for appeal or do a writ at the appropriate time. It's frustrating for sure. But what else can you do?

Reply Like (0)
superttthero (Jul 2, 2017 - 8:56 pm)

I think what some people are wanting to know is if a reasonable person could make the case that said stipulation, or a finding by him, would be necessary to grant your motion, if that makes sense.

Demanding a stipulation to just *consider* the motion is clearly not kosher, but if the Judge thinks this stip is almost necessary for him to make a finding in your favor in your motion motion then the procedure is just academic and practically speaking, this is the same as a denial.

FWIW, I don't practice in court--just my thoughts as to what I think people are trying to ask you and what is a little vague in your OP.

Reply Like (0)
redemptionsong (Jul 3, 2017 - 2:30 am)

Did my research yesterday (as I could not rely on JDU to do it for me ;) and found my answer. As with everything else, this situation is not new but the facts do not exactly fit prior cases. To give a bit more detail, the motion was to dissolve part of a preliminary injunction. The request was that we stipulate to the other party's entitlement to a permanent injunction which is part of the relief they seek and which is something we deny is appropriate in the case. We argue that it is clear that the PI was erroneously granted. The effect of the stipulation would be to provide the OP with part of the final relief they demand and to give the OP authority to argue and the Court authority to hold that the question is moot. I have to go a bit further but apparently A preliminary injunction merges into and permanent injunction, rendering it unappealable. So he will consider the motion if we give him authority upon which he may deny it and guarantee that he will not be overturned on appeal.

The good authority I found is from cases where the Court has overstepped in involving itself in settlement negotiations. The Court may not force settlement. And now I get to go back and tell him all this on brief and request more than a minute order if there was some misunderstanding. Great week ahead.

Reply Like (0)
Post a message in this thread