A “motion” is a request made by an attorney during a court case, asking the judge for permission to make some type of change to the case. But, according to the BRI’s legal expert, some motions are anything but ordinary.
MOTION: Delay the start of the trial because it conflicts with a college-football game.
ARGUMENTS: In a 2008 insurance case in Louisiana, the trial was scheduled to begin on January 7—the day of the national college football championship game between the hometown Louisiana State University Tigers and the Ohio State Buckeyes. The defendants’ lawyer, Stephen Babcock, argued, “In addition to the opportunity to be the BCS National Champions, this game also represents LSU’s chance to even their win-to-loss ratio with Ohio State. All opposing counsel are self-professed LSU fans, and consequently, have no objection.” Babcock even pointed out in a footnote that all the lawyers associated with the case were veteran members of a Tigers fan club called the “Tiger Pimp Nation.”
RULING: The judge was apparently a part of Tiger Pimp Nation as well. The motion was granted.
MOTION: Delay the trial because deer season will interfere with jury selection.
ARGUMENTS: In 2006 Bobby Junior Cox of Lonoke County, Arkansas, faced a number of serious charges in a highly publicized case. Voir dire, or jury selection, was scheduled to begin on November 8—three days before the state’s six-week-long deer-hunting season began. Cox’s lawyer argued that every defendant is entitled to a jury that represents a cross-section of his local community, and getting such a jury might be difficult. Because local residents often scheduled their vacation time during hunting season, many prospective jurors would want to be excused from serving.
RULING: The trial judge agreed with Hall’s arguments, and the motion to reschedule voir dire was granted.
In 2010 a British court gave permission for an injunction to be served via Twitter.
MOTION: The opposing lawyers should have lunch together.
ARGUMENTS: In a case involving a medical group in 2006, the plaintiff’s attorney, David Selden, thought that a friendly chat over lunch would be the best way to resolve some pretrial disputes with the opposing attorney. He even offered to pay, but his opponent, Dow Ostlund, didn’t respond. Selden finally filed a motion asking the court to compel Ostlund to have lunch with him. Ostlund eventually told the judge that he “would love to have lunch at Ruth’s Chris Steak House”—a restaurant that isn’t open for lunch. Selden objected to Ostlund’s choice, but said he would find a way to oblige—if Ostlund paid for his own meal.
RULING: The judge granted Selden’s request, and suggested 11 “fine restaurants within easy driving distance of both counsel’s offices,” ordered that the two meet for lunch no later than August 18, and even specified how the tab was to be paid, right down to the 20% tip. Ostlund probably realized after oral arguments what the judge would decide. Ostlund and Selden eventually sat down over a catered lunch…at Selden’s office.
MOTION: Delay the trial because the lawyer’s dog just had puppies (and a massive storm is about to hit).
ARGUMENTS: In a 2006 Florida case, the defendant’s attorney made a motion to have a hearing involving some findings the court had made. On July 13, 2006, the court ordered the plaintiff’s lawyers to submit their response to the motion by September 6. But by late August, Tropical Storm Ernesto was bearing down on southern Florida. On August 28, the plaintiff’s lawyers, Stanley and Susan Rosenblatt, moved for an extension of time to file their response. The Rosenblatts’ reason: With the storm coming, they and their staff would need the next few days to get through the storm, leaving them with little or no time to complete the work needed to respond to the motion. Finally, Susan Rosenblatt added, “In addition to the normal preparations for her family and office, undersigned counsel has seven puppies (born to her King Charles Cavalier) that are dependent upon her, and additional preparations for them are needed for the possible hurricane.”
RULING: The court granted the motion, and the puppies weathered the storm.
Traffic police in South Korea are required by law to report all the bribes they receive.