If you mention a paralegal on the first page of the response to an OSC, by the last page he/she absolutely must be fired.

Chekhov’s Principle for Lawyers

On a hot and humid morning of August 6, 2015 Keith Lipscomb came to his Miami office and found a very unpleasant document on his desk:

The Plaintiff is directed to show cause by a written response filed within eleven (11) days why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 3.10 for lack of prosecution due to the non-filing of a Case Management Report within the time prescribed by Local Rule 3.05. FAILURE TO TIMELY RESPOND TO THIS ORDER WILL RESULT IN DISMISSAL WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, on August 6, 2015. Elizabeth Kovachevich

United States District Judge

“What? Dismissal?” bellowed Lipscomb, “No way! We only started shaking down this defendant. We didn’t even call all his neighbors yet — to tell them about the “barely legal” porn illegally produced in Malibu that this guy likes to watch… But how did we manage to miss the deadline? Must be paralegals! Damn paralegals! Danny, Emilie, Jessica, bring me the paralegal!”

And they brought him the paralegal.

And Keith fired the paralegal:

Undersigned appreciates Your Honor’s desire to expeditiously move cases toward their final resolution and sincerely apologizes for Plaintiff’s failure to file a Case Management Report within the time prescribed by Local Rule 3.05. To explain, on May 14, 2015 Plaintiff filed a waiver of service. As such, pursuant to Local Rule 3.05, the Case Management Report was due on July 13, 2015. However, the deadline was not calendared, and Plaintiff inadvertently missed this deadline. The paralegal tasked with calendaring this deadline failed to do so. This paralegal has since been fired.

And Keith was so anxious, so anxious that he lost 10 pounds. And he totally forgot to file that bloody Case Management Report. A grimace of pain on Keith’s face when he read another Order to Show Cause on 9/28/2015 was authentic:

The Plaintiff is directed to show cause by a written response filed within eleven (11) days why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 3.10 for lack of prosecution due to the non-filing of a Case Management Report within the time prescribed by Local Rule 3.05. FAILURE TO TIMELY RESPOND TO THIS ORDER WILL RESULT IN DISMISSAL WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, on September 28, 2015. Elizabeth Kovachevich

United States District Judge

“Not again! I can’t even… Damn paralegals! Danny, Emilie, Jessica, bring me the paralegal! There will be blood! Oh how I’m angry!”

“Umm, Keith, you fired them all, there is only one left, and if you let her go, who will sing your favorite We are not Prenda lullaby?” Jessica coughed.

“Maybe you should try and call young Yousef from Columbus (today is the Columbus Day, ha-ha!): he manages to exit such situations all the time. The Internet Hate Group calls him Yousef ‘Show Cause’ Faroniya,” suggested Danny passing Keith a glass of water.

“OK, let’s do it,” sighed Keith, “Emilie: since you write all the motions he files, you should know his phone number.”

Ring-ring

“Hey, Yousef, this is Keith Lipscomb. Glad you answered: that you don’t pickup the phone is bulls—. It’s told by people who don’t have a clue what the hell they’re talking about.”

“Yeah.. wassup bro.”

“I have a question,” continued Keith, “When a judge is angry and stuff and you want to back down a bit but still want to save face… you know what I mean.. what do you do in such predicament?”

“I drop on the floor, belly up. Make the innocent face, and pee. Just a little. That’s what puppies do. Who can harm puppies?”

And Keith dropped belly up.



And he peed on the floor. Just a little:

(Malibu Media v. John Doe, FLMD 14-cv-02339)

Update

10/28/2015

You cannot make this stuff up. Today Lipscomb filed a Motion to Excuse His Sloppiness in Malibu Media v. Robert Dare (FLSD 14-cv-61957), where he wrote (emphasis is mine):

This motion should be granted because doing so would promote the presentation of the merits of this case and Defendant would not be prejudiced. On August 3, 2015, defense counsel served it First Request for Admissions (“Requests”) on Plaintiff. However, despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s express instructions, a paralegal failed to calendar the deadline. In short, and critically, Plaintiff did not intend to admit the Requests. Under these circumstances, and for the reasons set forth herein, permitting withdrawal of the admissions is required under Rule 36 and Eleventh Circuit law. First, the Requests improperly negate the heart of Plaintiff’s case by demanding admission that Plaintiff has no evidence to support its copyright infringement claim.

Bloody paralegals!