[Eugene Volokh, August 7, 2006 at 12:32pm] Trackbacks
Ruling on "Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Acceptance of Lunch Invitation":

Read it here; it's pretty funny, especially footnote 4. Thanks to Brannon Denning (guest-blogging at Instapundit) for the pointer.

CJColucci:
Looks like a damned activist judge to me.
8.7.2006 1:40pm
jack (mail):
I wonder if this will be followed up with a "Motion to Compel Acceptance of Dinner and a Movie Invitation."
8.7.2006 2:20pm
Mahlon:
Looks like Judge is taking ADR a step further. A friend of mine once mediated a case with a former judge acting as mediator. The parties had made some good progress but needed to go further to reach a resolution when the session was called for the day (it was a Friday afternoon). My friend cornered opposing counsel and the mediator (who both lawyers knew quite well) and decided that a "lawyer-only" session might help wrap things up. So Plaintiff's counsel and the mediator, with spouses, convened that evening at Defense counsel's home for dinner and one-too-many bottles of wine. Apparently, the wives (no doubt having bitten their collective tongues for years hearing their husbands complain about intractable opponents and judges) got into the mix. Needless to say, the case settled by dessert.
8.7.2006 2:43pm
BrianK (mail):
1. I'm beginning to wonder if too many judges are starting to get into the humor business, even granting that some lawyers probably deserve this kind of treatment.

2. Re Mahlon's comments on ADR being taken a step further. A few years back my lawyer brother's then-5-years-old daughter was at his often as he was wrapping up work for the week. While he was on the phone, she wandered into a hallway and got an "autograph" of an important looking gentleman. My brother's partner -- who was mediating a case in which that gentleman was one of the lawyers -- saw this and told her to "go into that other room" and get some more autographs, i.e., from the other side. When my brother started apologizing later about his niece disrupting proceedings, his partner said that her interruptions reminded all concerned that they had something better to do with their lives than quibble over the last inch of concession and that her interruptions helped the case settle.
8.7.2006 3:28pm
Apodaca:
Footnote 4 refers to "the Court's children." Shouldn't this be "my children" (or even "our children," notwithstanding Orin's recent criticism of trial judges using the first person plural), given that said children were presumably not sired by Judge Gaines in his official capacity?
8.7.2006 4:30pm
AndrewBW (mail):
Note also the Deputy Clerk of the Court — A. Beery.
8.7.2006 6:41pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Apodaca: Good point!
8.7.2006 7:11pm
Nazim (mail):
I interpreted "the Court's children" to mean the lawyers, but that might be a tad too paternalistic...
8.7.2006 7:15pm
ruidh (www):
This calls for a repost of the "rock, paper, scissors" decision.
8.8.2006 12:22pm
Bobo:
Just wait for the habeas petition.
8.10.2006 2:44am