The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.
In re: Aments to Appellate Rules 9.310
SC07-299
ALL RISE. THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. ALL THOSE HAVING BUSINESS BEFORE THIS COURT, DRAW NIGH, GIVE ATTENTION, AND YOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE THE UNITED STATES, THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA, AND THIS HONORABLE COURT.
GOOD MORNING.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. PLEASE BE SEATED.
GOOD MORNING, FRIENDS, AND WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. FOR THE ORAL ARGUMENT CALENDAR FOR THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20th, 2007. FIRST CASE THIS MORNING IS CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. MR. MILLS, READY TO PROCEED IF.
ACTUALLY WE HAVE A BRIEF BETWEEN US THAT MR. MULLINS WOULD GO FIRST.
OKAY. THAT'S FINE WITH THE COURT.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY NAME IS ED MULLINS. I'M THE IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR OF THE FLORIDA BAR APPELLATE RULES COMMITTEE I'M JOINED TODAY BY STEVE RANIC, THE CURRENT CHAIR OF HOLLAND AND KNIGHT WE ARE HERE TODAY TO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF THE MINORITY POSITION THAT THE APPELLATE RULES SHOULD BE CHANGED TO MATCH WITH STATUTE 45.045.
LET ME ASK YOU A THRESHOLD QUESTION, AN ISSUE I HAVE WITH A LOT OF THE RECENT RULES CHANGES, NOT JUST FROM THE APPELLATE RULES COMMITTEE BUT LEGISLATURE ENACTS A RULE AND, I MEAN ASTATUTE, AND THE RULES COMMITTEE THEN ADOPTS AMENDMENTS. AND WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE AMENDMENTS MERELY TRACK THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE. NOW, IF THE STATUTE IS SUBSTANTIVE, THEN IT SHOULDN'T BE IN A RULE. BECAUSE IT'S SUBSTANTIVE LAW, IT DOESN'T BELONG IN A RULE PROCEDURE. IF THE STATUTE IS PROCEDURAL, THEN PUTTING IN A RULE MOOTS THE ISSUE THAT IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE ITS PROCEDURAL AND NOW WE HAVE A RULE OF PROCEDURE THAT THE COURT HASN'T AGREED TO ENACT, THAT MAY BE PROCEDURAL THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT OF IN THE FIRST PLACE BUT NOW THE ISSUE THAT IT'S PROCEDURAL IS MOOTED. SO WHAT DO WE KEEP DOING THIS AND, AND JUST MIMICKING THE STATUTE INTO THE RULE WHEN THE STATUTE MAY HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS?
YOUR HONOR, I THINK THIS IS THE CASE WHERE IT'S THE CLEAREST SITUATION WHERE THIS IS WHY THIS SHOULD HAPPEN. WE THINK THIS STATUTE HAS BOTH SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL ASSETS. YOU HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO APPEAL IN THE CONSTITUTION. WE THINK THAT SHOULD BE SUBSTANTIVELY PROJECTED WE ARE ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHT FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY, WHO HOLDS PROPERTY DURING AN APPEAL. AND IN THIS SITUATION, WHY THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED HERE IS WE ALREADY HAVE A CONFLICT ON THE THE DCAs ON THIS CURRENT RULE. RIGHT NOW --
WHY SHOULDN'T IT COME AS A CASE BEFORE US WHERE THERE IS A CONFLICT AND WE SHOULD ADJUDICATE THAT CONFLICT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A CASE IN WHICH WE CAN SAY THERE ARE PARTS OF THE STATUTE THAT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT'S PROCEDURAL OR THE STATUTE GOVERNS BECAUSE IT IS SUBSTANTIVE. WHICHEVER ONE AND THAT'S HOW WE USUALLY DETERMINE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.
YOUR HONOR, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. I WILL TELL YOU THAT GIVING, THIS IS A RULE, THE APPELLATE PROCEDURE, THERE'S TWO METHODS TO FILE A CONFLICT FOR CHANGING INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE. WE CAN WAIT UNTIL THAT CONFLICT GOES UP TO THE COURTS WHILE SOMEBODY'S PAYING FOR THE LEGAL FEES OF HAVING TO ADJUDICATE THAT. THE COURT MAY OR MAY NOT ACCEPT YOUR -- OR THIS COURT HAS A RULEMAKING BODY WE HAVE THE APPELLATE RULES, THE COMMITTEE CHOO GUIDES THE COURT ON WHAT OUGHT TO BE MADE AND THIS COURT CAN CHANGE THE ALTAR CONFLICT. WE BELIEVE THAT'S THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO HAND ALCONFLICT AMONGST THE RULES.
WELL, THE CONFLICT DIDN'T OCCUR BECAUSE OF THE STATUTE, IS THAT CORRECT? THE CONFLICT AMONG THE DISTRICT COURTS.
THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
THE CONFLICT HAS TO DO WITH WHETHER THE COURT AS A CONDITION OF A BOND COULD PUT ADDITIONAL -- SOMETHING OTHER THAN A MONETARY BOND, IS THAT ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE CONFLICT IS?
THE CONFLICT WAS, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE SECOND DCA DISAGREED WITH THE 3rd AND THE 4th, THAT UNDER THE CURRENT LANGUAGE OF THE RULE, THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION ON A MONETARY JUDGMENT TO A, TO ALLOW A BOND LESS THAN THE TOTAL SNUMENT ALL RIGHT BUT HOW ABOUT HAS, WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING OUT THERE SINCE THIS STATUTE HAS BEEN IN EFFECT FOR OVER A YEAR, WHAT ARE JUDGES FACED WITH? THEY HAVE GOT THE RULE. AND THEN THEY HAVE GOT THE STATUTE. ARE THEY, IS THERE CONFUSION OUT THERE AS TO WHETHER THE STATUTE GOVERNS OR THE RULE GOVERNORS IS -- GOVERNS? IS IT CREATING? BECAUSE AGAIN IT IS THE ABSENCE OF A LOT OF PEOPLE COMMENTBING -- -- COMMENTING IN THIS CASE IS SORT OF STARTLING TO ME SO WHAT IS GOING ON ON THE GROUND IN THE APPELLATE WORLD?
MY UNDERSTANDING, YOUR HONOR S THERE HAS BEEN NO APPELLATE DECISION ON RULE VERSUS STATUTE. I UNDERSTAND THAT CURRENTLY THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME MAJOR VERDICTS HAVE COME OUT AND THE DEFENDANTS HAVE ASKED TO USE THE STATUTE AND THE PLAINTIFFS ARGUE THE STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT HASN'T MADE IT UP TO THIS COURT. I WILL TELL YOU TODAY --
HAS THERE BEEN A TRIAL COURT RULING ON WHETHER OR NOT THE STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTION SNL.
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE HAS, YOUR HONOR? I AM NOT AWARE OF ONE. BUT I WILL TELL YOU TODAY, EVEN WITHOUT THE STATUTE EVEN IF YOU ARE IM IN TAMPA THE COURT HAS DISCRETION BUT IN ORLANDO AND MIAMI THE --
BUT THAT IS CREATED BY THE STATUTE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. BECAUSE AS JUSTICE CANTERO SAYS, THAT COMES TO US. IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO DISTRICT COURTS THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE CLASSIC YOU GOT A GREAT EXPRESS AND DIRECT CONFLICT CASE TO BRINK UP, BUT NO ONE'S BROUGHT IT UP.
THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
NO ONE, AS I UNDERSTAND, JUDGE ALTERNBURNS DECISION TREALLY DIDN'T DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THERE IS THE FIRST LINE OF THE PRESENT RULE SEEMS TO DEFER TO A STATUTE.
THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
AND SO IT, I MEAN, WE REALLY HAVE A STATE OF THE LAW IN SUCH THAT THAT THERE COULD BE AN INTERPRETATION OF THIS RULE THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE TO DATE THAT SINCE THERE, THE LEGISLATURE HAS ACTED IN THIS AREA, THE RULE CONTEMPLATES THAT THE LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT WOULD BE APPLIED IN A SITUATION WHICH THE STATUTE APPLIED.
THAT'S CREDIBILITY, YOUR HONOR. IN FACT, YOU COULD LOOK AT THE COMMENTS WHEN THEY AMENDED THE RULE IN 1977 THAT SAID THIS WILL NOT AFFECT STATUTORY STATES SO YOU'RE CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. WE BELIEVE AS YOU HAVE DONE IN THE PAST WHEN YOU HAD A SITUATION LIKE THIS, AND THERE IS A STATUTE THAT HAS SUBSTANTIVE PROCEDURAL RIGHTS THAT YOU SHOULD TAKE THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS AND YOU SHOULD DO SO NOT JUST BECAUSE THERE'S A CONFLICT IN THE STATUTE. NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT AMONG DCAs, BUT IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. THE VERDICT IN ENGEL --
EVEN IF WE DECIDE TO, THAT THAT LANGUAGE, THAT FIRST SENTENCE OF THE STATUTE MEANS SOME DEFERENCE TO THE LEGISLATURE, SHOULDN'T THAT ONLY BE IN THE AREA OF, OF THE SUBSTANTIVE, ANY KIND OF SUBSTANTIVE SFACHUTE THAT THE LEGISLATURE PASSES?
WELL, WHAT THE RULE SAYS --
WOULD NOT REQUIRE TEVEN THAT SENTENCE WOULD NOT REQUIRE IT TO GIVE DEFERENCE TO THE LEFRN SLACHER IF THE STATUTE IS PROCEDURAL?
WHAT HAD RULE SAYS IS A STEP PROVIDED BY GENERAL LAW SO RIGHT NOW WATHITHE COURT HAS LOOKED AT SUBSTANTIVE VERSUS PROCEDURAL THE FIRST QUESTION IS DOES THIS CONFLICT WITH THE RULE? THAT'S YOUR FIRST QUESTION BECAUSE IF IT'S SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL ASPECTS AS OF THE STATUTE, THEN THIS COURT WILL PRESUME THE STATUTE'S CONSTITUTIONAL AND WILL DEFER TO LEGISLATURE UNLESS THERE'S A CONFLICT. HERE, THERE IS NO CONFLICT FOR TWO REASONS IT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH THE PLAIN LANGUAGE AS DETERMINED BY PLAT IN ALL DEFERENCE TO THE 3rd DCA. I BELIEVE THAT THE PLAT DECISION IS CORRECT THE WAY THE RULE IS WRITTEN. SECONDLY, AS JUSTICE WELLS POINT OUT, THE RULE ITSELF SAYS IS RVE CARVED OUT FOR GENERAL LAW. THERE IS NO CONFLICT HERE.
SO AS ANY TRIAL COURT REFUSED TO APPLY THE STATUTE FOR ANY READEN?
YOUR HONOR, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WHY DO WE NEED TO ADOPT A RULE IF THE COURTS SAY, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO APPLY THE STATUTE, THE STATUTE SAYS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE LIMITED TO $50 MILLION WE ARE GOING TO APPLY THAT. THAT'S THE PROBLEM? WHY DO WE NEED A RULE?
YOUR HONOR, ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET TO THIS COURT LLT TIME. YOU DON'T TAKE COURSES -- CASES ALL THE TIME DUE TO YOUR HEAVY DOCKET. WE BELIEVE RIGHT NOW SINCE THERE HAS BEEN A SLIP OF -- SPLIT OF AUTHORITY AMONGST DCA, STATUTE INWITHSTANDING --
IS THERE A STATUTE OF AUTHORITY ON WHETHER THIS STATUTE APPLIES? YOU SEEM TO SAY, NO. YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION, NO THERE IS NO, THERE'S NO AUTHORITY AT ALL REALLY, RIGHT?
I BELIEVE RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO AUTHORITY.
RIGHT SO THERE IS NO CONFLICT OUT THERE THAT WOULD REQUIRE OUR INTERVENTION ANYWAY.
WELT, YOUR HONOR, ON THE, THERE'S NO CONFLICT THAT REQUIRES YOUR INTERVENTION BUT HOWEVER IN THE PAST FOR EXAMPLE JUST LAST MAY WHEN THE LEGISLATURE OVERTURNED THE RULE ABOUT WHEN A DEFENDANT IS ALLOWED TO CLOSE AN ARGUMENT IN MAY 2007 YOU ADOPTED WHAT THE LEGISLATURE DID WHICH DIDN'T CHANGE THE RULE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE FEDERAL COURTS WERE DOING THAT'S WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE STATES WERE DOING AND BECAUSE IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
IT SEEMS TO ME WE ARE DEALING WITH TWO OR THREE SEPARATE THINGS, AND THE ISSUE OF THE CAP OF THE $50 MILLION CAP TO ME IS VERY DIFFERENT ABOUT ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS SHOULD JUDGES HAVE DISCRETION TO ALLOW A BOND LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE JUDGMENT. WHICH YAO AGREE THAT THOSE ARE TWO -- ONE THING AFFECTS A VERY SMALL NUMBER, EVEN IT COULD BE A VERY SIGNIFICANT ISSUE, OF JUDGMENTS, WHEREAS THE OTHER HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. WOULD YOU AGREE SO WE ARE DEALING WITH TWO VERY SEPARATE THINGS.
I AGREE THAT THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
AND YOU STARTED TO TALK ABOUT ENGAL AND WHAT HAPPENED AS I UNDERSTAND IT IN ENGEL, WELL, SEVERAL THINGS HAPPENED BUT ONE WAS THE LEGISLATURE APPARENTLY PASSED SOMETHING THAT CAPPED THE AMOUNT OF THE BOND. IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED?
THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
AND NOBODY CHALED THAT.
NO, NO YOUR HONOR,.
SO THE IDEA THAT THERE COULD BE, THAT THIS CAP IS OUT THERE, $50 MILLION.
IT'S 100 MILLION FOR CLASS ACTIONS.
THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY. IS THAT, IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT THAT PARTICULARLY SHOULD AWAIT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS WHETHER A CAP IS LAWFUL UNDER WHATEVER PROCEDURAL SUBSTANTIVE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS THAT THAT ONE DON'T YOU SEE THAT AS DIFFERENT FROM THE DISCRETIONARY ISSUE?
YOUR HONOR, I GUESS, I GUESS MY ANSWER IS THAT AS YOU HAVE DONE IN THE PAST WHEN, WHEN THESE THINGS HAVE COME UP TO YOU, WHEN THERE IS A STATUTE THAT HAS BOTH PROCEDUREAL AND SUBSTANTIVE, WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IS ADOPTED THE STATUTE BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE. YOU DON'T NEED CONFUSION BELOW. WHY WOULD WE WAIT UNTIL THERE'S A FIGHT IN THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THOSE FIGHTS ARE HAPPENING AND THEY ARE GONNA HAPPEN AND PEOPLE ARE LITERALLY FACING BANKRUPTCY AND WHILE, AND IF YOU GET TO A JUDGE IN THE 3rd DCA FOR EXAMPLE, THAT SAYS THAT LOOK THE 3rd DCA SAYS THERE IS NO DISCRETION HERE, IT'S STRAIGHT JACKETED, I HAVE NO DISCRETION I THINK THE STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO THIS COURT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET TO THE 3rd DCA AND THEN THIS COURT WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THIS --
THIS IS HERE AND NOW.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS A PRACTICAL MATTER AND COMES BACK TO MY FIRST QUESTION IS WE NEVER HAVE ANY ISSUES ABOUT WHETHER THE STATUTE IS PROCEDURAL BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE SIMPLY ADOPTS THE STATUTE INTO RULE. WE ADOPT THE RULE. AND THEREFORE, THAT ISSUE IS NOW MOOT. AND THEREFORE, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE LEGISLATURE WILL BE FOR DOZENS OF YEARS ENACTING PROCEDURAL LAWS THAT WE ADOPT AND BECAUSE IN A RULES CASE, WE DON'T DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAW. THAT ISSUE WILL NEVER ARISE.
AND YOUR HONOR, I HATE TO SAY THIS IS A SPECIAL CASE. I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION ON THAT. I WILL TELL YOU, WHIS -- WHEN THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE STATUTE CAME BEFORE THE RULES COMMITTEE TLOST BY ONE VOTE. BY ONE VOTE WE WOULD'VE BEEN HERE FOUR YEARS AGO AND I WOULD'VE BEEN ARGUING SOMEONE FROM THE RULES COMMITTEE WOULD'VE BEEN ARGUING YES YOU SHOULD CHANGE THIS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CONFLICT AMONG THE DCAs. BY ONE VOTE WE WERE GOING DIFFERENT ON THIS. THE REASON THE VOTE WAS HERE BECAUSE SOME OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SAID WE HAVE LOOKED AT THIS BEFORE. THERE'S A STATUTE AND THE ISSUES WERE ALL OVER THE PLACE. WHEN THE CBLITY LOOKED AT -- COMMITTEE LOOKED AT THIS ISSUE WHEN THERE WAS NO STATUTE AND THEY WERE LOOKING AT SHOULD WE FILE THE 2nd DCA, SHOULD WE FILE THE 3rd DKA, BY ONE VOTE.
I SEE YOU ARE IN YOUR REBUTTAL BUT WHAT WASN'T COMING UP FOUR YEARS AGO WAS WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A $100 MILLION CAP AND YOU KEEP ON GOING BACK TO THIS CONFLICT AMONG THE DISTRICT COURTS. YOU WANT, IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT THE ISSUE, -THE RULES COMMITTEE WAS COMING UP WITH SOMETHING HERE SAYING THAT THERE SHOULD BE DISCRETION, WE WOULD BE LOOKING DISCREETLY AT THAT BUTTIA JUST THINK THAT BY IMPORTING THE WHOLE STATUTE INTO THE RULE THE MINOIRT POSITION THAT DONE I HAVE -- MINORITY POSITION HAS DONE, I HAVE GOT SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT SO THAT'S ME PROBLEM. IT'S ALMOST TOO MUCH THAT YOU HAVE PUT IN THERE.
AND ALL I WOULD SAY, YOUR HONOR, MY -- WOULD BE FOR YOU TO TELL US THIS PORTION OF THE STATUTE WE HAVE A PROBLEM W. TELL US WHAT YOU WANT US TO DO. SEND US BACK TO RECRAFT THE RULE. WHAT I DON'T THINK IS A GOOD THING TO SOOIS ALLOW, ALLOW THE POTENTIAL MESS OUT THERE WHERE YOU HAVE A STATUTE, YOU HAVE A RULE, YOU HAVE A 3rd DCA AND 4th DCA INTERPRETING IN DIFFERENT WAYS, YOU HAVE CONFLICT AMONG THE DCAs AS TO WHETHER THE STATUTE IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT T. MAKES SENSE. IN EVERY OTHER CASE HE HAS DISCRETION ON MERITS, ON NEW TRIAL MOTIONS ON BENCH TRIAL, ON THE FACTS. HE HAS THE DISCRETION TO POSE REGIONAL GROUNDS FOR A STATE ON AN INJUNCTION. THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THIS IS THE MOST REMARKABLE THING HAS THE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHAT THE GROUNDS ARE STAY WILL BE IF IT'S ANYTHING OTHER -- IF IT'S NOT JUST A MONEY JUDGMENT. IF IT'S A MONEY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION YOU DON'T HAVE AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT TO STAY UNDER THE STATUTE AS DETERMINED BY THOSE DCAs THAT SAY FOR MONEY JUDGMENT ITS AUTOMATIC. IN OTHER WORDS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE HAS DISCRETION IN EVERY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES EXCEPT FOR THE 3rd AND THE 4th WHO SAY THAT IF IT'S A MONEY JUDGMENT ONLY YOU HAVE NO DISCRETION IT IS NOT THE MAJORITY RULE IN THE STATES WE DID LOOK AT THAT BUT MOST STATES HAVE GONE THE WAY THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE GONE AND SAY IN THE LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES GIVE THE TRIAL JUDGE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHO'S ON THE GROUND TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE AND SAY YOU KNOW WHAT? ON THIS CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO AVOID BANKRUPTCY WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO AVOID THESE BIG VERDICTS AND WE SUGGEST --
OW SAYING THIS WHOLE CONFLICT HAS BEEN OUT THERE FOR FOUR YEARS AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN THAT 4-YEAR PERIOD, THERE SHOULD'VE BEEN SOMEONE WHO WANTED TO HAVE DISCRETION AND DIDN'T HAVE DISCRETION IN THE 4th AND THE 3rd DCA WHO COULD'VE BRAUT THAT ISSUE TO THIS COURT.
AND YOU KNOW? EFTLY THE LAWYERS DON'T SEEM TO BE HAVING A PROBLEM WITH IT IF THEY'VE, YOU KNOW, EXPRESS AND DIRECT CONFLICT IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE, THAT PEOPLE BRING TO THIS COURT ALL THE TIME.
YOUR HONOR, ALL I COULD SAY TO YOU IS THAT WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH SOMETHING LIKE A STAY AND YOU ARE DOING A SITUATION TMAY NOT BE THAT YOUR CLIENT HAS THE RESOURCES TO CONTINUE THIS PARTICULAR FIGHT, WHICH IS NOT ON THE MERITS ALL THE WAY TO THE COURT AND WE HAVE ALWAYS TAKEN THE POSITION AT LEAST I HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION ON THE RULES COMMITTEE THAT THERE IS A CONFLICT AMONG THE DCO OS ON AN INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE THAT WE SHOULD BRING IT TO THIS COURTS THROUGH RULES AND PROCEDURES SO THAT WILL BE SOLVED IMMEDIATELY SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL SOME LITIGANT FINANCES AS OUR OBLIGATION OF THE RULES COMMITTEE IS ADVISE THIS COURT THAT THERE'S A CONFLICT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A UNIFORM INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES IN THE STATE. WE SHOULDN'T WAIT UNTIL THE INTERPRETATION AND A CONFLICT JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. WE DON'T NEED TO -- YOU HAVE THE OBLIGATION AND THE DOUGHTY AND THE RIGHT TO INTERPRET THESE RULES.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT A MINORITY OF THE RULES COMMITTEE HAS TAKEN THIS OPPORTUNITY WHERE THERE IS A STOCHUTE TO BRING TO THE COURT -- STATUTE TO BRING TO THE COURT SOMETHING THEY COULDN'T GET TO THE COURT WHEN THEY BROUGHT IT TO THE WHOLE LULS COMMITTEE FOUR YEARS AGO.
YOUR HONOR, THE ONLY THING I COULD SAY TO THAT IS THAT WHEN, AGAIN, YOU CAN'T LOOK AT THIS VOTE AS SIMPLY, WELL IT'S 45 -- YOU KNOW 45-7, WHATEVER IT WAS. I WAS SHARE CHAIR. I DIDN'T VOTE. FOR ONE THING BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT WHEN, WHEN THE ISSUE WAS SHOULD WE HAVE A DISCRETIONARY STAY OR NOT, IT WAS ONLY A 1-VOTE ISSUE. AND THE REASON WHY WE INTERPRETED THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE WAS TO AVOID THE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE AS YOU HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, AS YOU JUST DID BACK IN MAY, JUST TOOK THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE. HOWEVER --
WITH OUR ASSISTANCE, YOU HAVE USED NOT ONLY YOUR FULL TIME BUT YOUR REBUTTAL TIME AND MORE.
OH, THANK YOU.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD MORNING, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. I'M JOHN MILLS WITH MILLS AND CREED. I'M THE VICE CHAIR OF THE APPELLATE RULES COMMITTEE AND I REPRESENT THE 83% MAJORITY THAT SHOT DOWN THIS RULE. AND JUSTICE CANTERO, THE, YOU'VE OPENED THE ARGUMENT WITH SOME CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THORULE COMMITTEES ARE OPERATING WHEN THE LEGISLATURE MAKES CHANGES THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT CONFLICT WITH THE RULES AND I THINK THAT MESSAGE HAS ALREADY GOTTEN ACROSS AT LEAST TO OUR RULES COMMITTEE. BECAUSE THAT WAS LARGELY THE BASIS, THAT'S THE REASON WHY THIS WENT FROM A ONE-VOTE TO AN OVERWHELMING VOTE AGAINST, AND THAT WAS THE IDEA THAT WE WAS A RULES COMMITTEE SHOULD NOT BE FOCUSING ON WHETHER SOMETHING'S CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT F. THERE'S A DEBATABLE ISSUE, THAT SHOULD GO THROUGH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
BUT LET ME GIVE YOU THE OTHER SIDE, AND WITH DUE DEFERENCE TO JUSTICE CANTERO, I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, I SEE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO WHETHER THE CAP.
SURE.
SHOULD BE. DO YOU AGREE THAT THAT'S LIKE A SEPARATE ISSUE? AND I KNOW THAT IF THEY DID IN THE TOBACCO CASE AND SOMEBODY HAS A CASE AND IT'S IMPOSED BECAUSE IT'S, THAT, THERE'S NO DISCRETION THERE AS, IF, IF IT'S OVER $100 MILLION YOU JUST CAN'T GET TTHAT WOULD BE SEPARATE BUT ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE IS DISCRETION, IN A TRIAL JUDGE TO ALTER THE MONEY MONETARY BOND, EITHER, THERE IS OR THERE ISN'T. AND SINCE THAT'S CLEARLY IN THE RULE, THAT THERE HAS BEEN DIFFER NOTHINGTERPRETATIONS AND ALTHOUGH FOR SOME REASON IT DIDN'T COME UP THIS WAY, WHY ISN'T THE RULES PROCESS ON THAT ISSUE? A GOOD PLACE TO GO? I MEAN WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER TO GET THAT SORTED OUT, NOT BY USING THE MINORITY POSITION'S RULE BUT TO ASK THE RULES COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT THAT AND RECOMMEND WHETHER CHANGES ARE NEEDED AND WHETHER THERE IS, SHOULD BE OR SHOULDN'T BE DISCRETION. GET THE SENSE OF THE WHOLE APPELLATE COMMUNITY. AND TRY TO GET IT, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE ARE GOING TO GET ALL INPUT AS OPPOSED TO JUST DISCREET CASE. SO ON THAT ISSUE, I'D LIKE YOUR, YOUR THOUGHTS ON IT.
SURE. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY AND I THINK THAT'S A VERY CORRECT OBSERVATION AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN 2005. JUSTICE ENGLAND IN A PRIVATE CASE HAD A CASE WHERE HE THOUGHT IT WAS INEQUITABLE TO POSE THE FULL AMOUNT. HE PROPOSED THE FULL COMMITTEE TO CLARIFY THIS. THIS WAS BETWEEN THE SPLIT BETWEEN THE 2nd AND THE 3rd OR 4th, WHICHEVER. AND CAME UP AND PROPOSED TO THE RULE COMMITTEE THAT WE SAY THAT THERE IS DISCRETION, THAT WE CLARIFY AND THE THAT DA.
THAT IS INDEPENDENT OF THE STATUTE.
IT IS INDEPENDENT OF THE STATUTE.
EVEN WITHOUT THIS STATUTE BECAUSE THAT WAS A CONFLICT WITH THE RULE NOT WITH BETWEEN THE RULE AND THE STATUTE.
AND IF I COULD DIRECT YOU, THE MINORITY'S RESPONSE ATTACHES THE REPORT FROM 2005. AND THAT REPORT HAS THE PROPOSED UMENT AMENDMENT THAT WE LOOKED AT BACK IN 2005 AND THAT AMENDMENT WAS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE STATUTE THAT WE GOTTEN --
THAT'S WHY I AM SAYING -- YOU KNOW, LET'S, JUST LETS EVEN THOUGH WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF THE STATUTE I AM CONCERNED THAT ACROSS THE STATE THERE ARE DISTRICTS THAT ARE JUST, WHAT WAS MR. MULLINS WAS SAYING, SO WHY IS THE RULES COMMITTEE NOW THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS SAID SOMETHING, AND AGAIN, I AGREE WE JUST SHOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, GO IN AND SAY JUST BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE DID IT, LET'S DO IT, BUT WIEBE OVER THE YEARS TO AVOID UNNECESSARY FRICTION, WE HAVE ALT A COMEDY!!ITY ADOMED IN THE -- -- COMITY ADOPTED IN THE EVIDENCE CODE WHERE IT MAKES SENSE. SO IT IS -- DOES IT MAKE GOOD SENSE TO HAVE DISCRETION OR AS THE FLORIDA JUSTICE ASSOCIATION SAYS, SHOULD WE MAKE IT CLEAR IN THE RULE THAT THERE IS NO DISCRETION?
RIGHT. WELL, SPEAKING WITH MY HAT AS THE MAJORITY WE ARE NOT OF THE SAME VIEW IN THE MAJORITY. SOME PEOPLE WERE OF THE VIEW THAT IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE CHANGED BECAUSE THE STATUS QUO HAS BEEN THE STATUS QUO FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS T. HASN'T GOT TO THIS COURT FOR A REASON. LOOK AT THE COMMENTS. YOU HAVE PUBLISHED THIS RULE. THERE WAS A CHANCE FOR EVERYBODY OUT THERE FOR WHO'S AFFECTED BY THIS SUPPOSED BIG PROBLEM TO FILE COMMENTS. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS FILED BY ANYBODY SAYING THIS WAS A BIG PROBLEM. THERE WAS ONE COMMENT FILED IN FAVOR, ONLY ONE COMMENT FILED IN FAVOR OF THE RULE BY MR. NEDDALTON, AND HE WAS MORE FOCUSED ON HIS COMMENT ON WHETHER THE STATUTE IS CORRECT TO EXCLUDE INSURANCE OR NOT. AND SO YOU'VE HAD NOBODY, YOU'VE HAD NO ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE HERE --
WELL, BUT IF THERE IS, THERE IS REAL EVIDENCE HERE IN THAT WE HAVE GOT A SPLIT, WHEREAS THE LAW IN THE SECOND DISTRICT IS ONE THING, AND THE LAW IN THE 3rd AND THE 4th IS ANOTHER.
THAT'S CORRECT.
PLUS, I WONDER, IF, IF BY REASON OF THIS STATUTE THAT WE DON'T HAVE A, A FURTHER CONFUSED SITUATION. BECAUSE THERE IS THE CASES IN THE 3rd AND 4th SAID THE TRIAL JUDGE HAS NO DISCRETION. THE OTHER THAN TO HAVE THE AMOUNT THAT'S SET FORTH IN PROVISION ONE OF THE RULE. THE LEGISLATURE IT SAID THAT THE BOND CANNOT MORE THAN X AMOUNT, SO IT IS IN CONFLICT FOR THOSE JUDGE, JUDGMENTS THAT ARE IN EXCESS OF THAT AMOUNT. WITH THE RULE SO WE DO HAVE A --
YOU HAVE A CONFLICT BUT EVEN --
CONFLICTING SITUATION.
SURE. BUT EVEN IN THE SITUATION OF PLAT, PLAT DOES NOT STAND FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT A TRIAL JUDGE CAN REDUCE A BOND IF A DEFENDANT CAN'T AFFORD T. IN FACT, PLAT SAYS WHEN THE TRIAL COURT IS EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION, AND THAT'S IT'S FITS INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE THAT THAT TRIAL COURT HAS THAT DISCRETION IT NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE APLY IS PROTECTED. THE LANGUAGE IN THERE SAYS IF HE'S GOT OTHER SECURITY OTHER THAN A BOND, THAT'S FINE BUT IN NO EVENT SHOULD IT IMPINGE ON THE ABILITY TO FILE LIENS, TO PERFECT LIENS, TO DO OTHER THINGS SO EVEN THOUGH IT GIVES DISCRETION TCABINS THAT DISCRETION AND MUCH -- IN MUCH THE SAME WAY AS THE TRIAL LAWYER'S ARGUMENT HERE EXCEPT FOR THE TRIAL LAWYERS --
BUT AGAIN I AM THINKING OF THE TRIAL JUDGE. THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENT. WHAT IS THE TRIAL JUDGE IN THE 1st DISTRICT SUPPOSED TO DO? THEY HAVE NOW HAD TWO DIFFERENT INTRPERATATIONS OF THE RULE? DO THEY HAVE DISCRETION OR DON'T THEY? AND THEN THEY HAVE GOT THE 2nd DISTRICT SAYING YOU HAVE DISCRETION BUT NOT BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL SITUATION. CAN THEY ENGAGE IN DISCOVERY OR NOT? I MEAN, I, I'M, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I SEE THIS AS BEING, MUST BEB AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THAT JUDGE IN THAT CASE, AND I'M CONCERNED THAT THE APPELLATE RULES COMMITTEES BECAUSE THEY HAVE -- THEY ARE NOT OF A SIMILAR VIEW, BECAUSE THEY ARE A BROAD-BASED IS KIND OF JUST PUNTING?
WELL I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE PUNTING HERE, AND LET ME SHARE WITH YOU OUR THOUGHT PROCESS. AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT YOU DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS. BY DEFENSE GROUPS SAYING WE ARE FALLING WE NEED THIS. THE RETAIL FEDERATION IS SAYING NOBODY CAN'T --
I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT HOW CAN YOU TELL ME THOUGH THAT THE ISSUE -- AGAIN, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ARGUE, THE 1st DISTRICT HASN'T RULED YET, RIGHT?
NOPE.
OKAY. YOU'RE CLIENT GETS, HAS A JUDGMENT IN THEIR FAVOR. FOR $75 MILLION.
AS A PRACTICAL MATTER IS THE REASON WE DON'T HAVE THE CASES IS THEY DON'T GO IN THERE. THE PLAINTIFF ISN'T GOING TO DEMAND A 75, 80, $90 MILLION BOND TO HOLD EXECUTION BECAUSE THE REASONS DRIVING THE DEFENDANT INTO BANKRUPTCY IS FOR THE BLAF AND SO THE PLAINTIFF A SUCCESSFUL JUDGMENT CREDITSER NOT GOING TO PUSH THIS ISSUE.
AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN ENGER. -- ENGEL.
EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A STATUTE THEY WORKED OUT AMONG THEMSELVES. BECAUSE SOMETIMES THERE IS THE UNUSUAL CASE.
JUST A MINUTE. JUSTICE QUINCE?
I'M JUST INTERESTED REALLY.
I AM JUST CURIOUS. HOW MANY CASES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WITH LARGE NUMBER OF CASES WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE DRAWN INTO BANKRUPTCY AND ALL OF THE THAT?
RIGHT NOW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ZERO CASES BECAUSE THIS HASN'T COME UP, THIS HASN'T COME TO THIS COURT, WE HAVEN'T HAD PEOPLE PETITION APPELLATE CASE LAW. BUT IF YOU MONDAY THE RULE TO ALLOW THIS. IF THERE IS EXPLICIT ABILITY FOR THE BOND REDUCES AND ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S THE NOTION IF WE CALL THEM ECONOMIC HARDSHIP THEY ARE GOING TO GO IN EVERY TIME AND THIS WAS A BIG CONCERN. FOR OUR DILSH JUDICIAL MEMBERS THAT IS GOING TO CREATE. IT REQUIRES AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE TRIAL COURT ON A PROCEDURAL MANNER. IT REQUIRES DISCOVERY T. AUTHORIZES THE APALI AT ANYTIME TO SAY HEY I THINK THEY ARE SECRETING ASSETS I WANT MORE DISCOVERY AND ANOTHER HEARING.
BUT THE STATUTE NOW REQUIRES IT SO ISN'T IT JUST -- AREN'T WE JUST WAITING FOR THAT TRAIN WRECK, IN OTHER WORDS THE STATUTE THERE, AND SO IT CAN BE DEMANDED UNTIL SOMEONE SAYS --
I, I DON'T, WE'RE DANCING AROUND, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE OF IS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT. IT'S CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THIS COURT DECIDESED THAT IN WAIT. THE PROBLEM YOU ARE IDENTIFYING IS WE TRY NOT TO GET INTO CONSTITUTIONALITY IN THE RULES AMENDMENT CASE.
RIGHT. SURE AND THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T PROPOSE THIS RULE. I DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL --
JUSTICE WELLS HAD A QUESTION. HE WAS CUT OFF.
I WAS REACTING TO YOUR COMMENT THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DRIVE SOMEONE INTO BANKRUPTCY. BUT THE SITUATION REALLY COMES UP. WHEN YOU GET A $75 MILLION VERDICT AGAINST FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT. OR AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS. AND THAT SITUATION IS WHAT WOULD, WILL BRING THIS INTO FOCUS. YES, FLORIDA AND POWER AND LIGHTS HAD SEVERAL OF THOSE AND THEY NEVER BROUGHT THIS UP AND THEY ARE NOT HERE SAYING GOSH WE NEED THIS BECAUSE WE CAN'T PROVIDE POWER TO THE WORLD OR WHATEVER. I MEAN, IT'S NOT, IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX T. YOU JUST DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE HERE THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM AMONG THE LOWER COURTS.
WELL, LET'S GO BACK TO THE ENGEL. YOU SAID THEY WORKED OUT. IF THEY WORKED OUT, WHY DID THEY HAVE TO GET LEGISLATION?
I THINK THEY WORKED OUT BEFORE THE LEGISLATION WAS FINALLY PASSED. I DO NOT KNOW FOR A FACT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY WORKED OUT AFTER THE LEGISLATION IN ORDER TO AVOID LITIGATION OVER THE LEGISLATION.
THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT.
ARE WE REALLY MAKING A RULE FOR A SYMBOL -- THIMBLE FULL OF CASES AS OPPOSED TO THE BROAD GENERAL SPECTRUM OF CASES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN FLORIDA?
YES AND NO. YOU WOULD BE MAKING A RULE TO RESOLVE A, A HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEM AND A THIMBLE FULL OF CASES BUT IF YOU MAKE THE RULE, THE THIMBLEFUL BECOMES A LANDSLIDE.
AND CONTROLS ALL OF THE OTHER CASES.
THAT'S RIGHT THAT'S RIGHT. AND IN IN EVERY CASE, A DEFENDANT SAYS GOSH THAT'S GOING TO PUT ME OUT OF BUSINESS. AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO GO BACK TO THE POLICY DECISION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY MADE, TO PUT TO REQUIRE AND MONEY JUDGMENTS AND 9.3108 DOES NOT APPLY HERE. 9.3108 WHICH SAYS ACCEPT AS PROVIDED BY GENERAL LAW YOU HAVE GOT TO READ THE NEXT CLAUSE ACCEPT BY PROVIDED AS GENERAL LOLL OR SUBDIVISION B. SUBDIVISION B IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. IT DOESN'T SAY SUBDIVISION B CAN'T BE OVERRID BINE LAW. IT IS TALKING ABOUT CASES WHERE THERE IS NOT JUST POTENTIALLY A MONEY JUDGMENT. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF OR WHATEVER OTHER THINGS IT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT GENERAL LAW MAY CHANGE GENERAL PART B.
NOW I CAN SEE THE APPELLATE RULES COMMITTEE BEING RELUCTANT TO AND IT BEING UNNECESSARY TO IMPORT THE CAP PART BECAUSE EITHER AGAIN THAT PART'S EITHER CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT AND THAT'S GOING TO BE A DISCREET ISSUE. I'M STILL SOMEWHAT CONCERNED ABOUT WE SHOULD LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE WITH THE ISSUE OF THIS DISCRETION, AND AGAIN, I, YOU KNOW, I'M THINKING BACK TO MY DAYS AND I DIDN'T DO THE APPELLATE PART BUT I DON'T EVER REMEMBER THERE BEING A AN ISSUE. EITHER THERE IS INSURANCE OR THERE, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T, IT JUST WASN'T A BURNING ISSUE BUT TELL ME THAT WHY THAT ISN'T A PRACTICAL PROBLEM IN TERMS OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE AND WHY AT LEAST THAT ASPECT SHOULD BE CLARIFIED THROUGH THE RULES.
YEAH. I, I, I, I DON'T DISAGREE I SAID I DIDN'T GET TO THE OTHER HAT THAT I AM WEARING I AM A MEMBER OF THE MAJORITY WE HAVE TWO VIEWS MY VIEW IS PERFECTLY IN LINE WITH THE TRIAL LAUER'S POSITION. I MEAN I THINK IT IS ALREADY CLEAR. BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE A 2nd DCA OPINION FINDING THERE IS CONFUSION, THERE I THINK THAT SHOULD BE BY RULE ELIMINATED. I LOST THAT BY A SINGLE VOTE. WE WE SAID WE WEREN'T GOING TO TOUCH IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IN 2005.
BUT THAT, SO THE REAL REASON IT DIDN'T COME UP IN 2005 IS BECAUSE SOMEBODY WANTED IT TO BE CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO DISCRETION.
NO. IT WAS THE THRESHOLD -- OKAY TO GET TO THE MAJORITY YOU HAD SOME PEOPLE WHO SAID -- AND THESE ARE OVERLAPPING -- SOME PEOPLE SAID IT IS NOT OUR BUSINESS AS A RULES COMMITTEE TO RESOLVE DISTRICT SPLITS. THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES DISTRICT SPLITS ARE PROVIDED BY DISTRICT COURTS. SO SOME PEOPLE WERE OF THE VIEW THAT WE SHOULD NOT AS A RULES COMMITTEE ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE SPLITS. A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE NOT OF THAT VIEW. I WAS NOT OF THAT VIEW. OTHER PEOPLE WERE OF THE VIEW THAT WE HAD IT WRONG, THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO -- RESOLVE THE SPLIT, WE ARE GOING TO RESOLVE IT IN FAVOR OF NO DISCRETION SO BETWEEN THOSE TWO, THAT DEFEATED IT ORIGINALLY. SO IT'S REALLY -- I CAN IMAGINE WHAT IT WAS LIKE AMONG APPELLATE COURT AND JUDGES. SO WE ARE WAITING UP FOR THAT ASPECT TO COME UP IN A CASE IN CONFLICT.
I DO AND AGAIN I WOULD GO BACK IN MY FINAL SECONDS. AT SOME POINT IN TIME THAT HAPPENS. THERE IS ALWAYS THE RICK RISK THAT WHOEVER HAS THE MONEY IS GOING TO LOSE THE MONEY BEFORE THE CASE IS FINALLY DIVIDED BY APPEAL. UNDER OUR CURRENT SYSTEM THE PLAINTIFF BEARS THAT RISK UP UNTIL THERE'S A FINAL JUDGMENT. IF THERE'S A LAWSUIT GOING AND THE PLAINTIFF HAS A SLAM DUNK BUT JUST HASN'T GOTTEN HIS JUDGMENT YET THE DEFENDANT HAS THE ASSETS SOMEBODY ELSE CAN COME GHET THEM, WHATEVER CAN HAP THAT PREVENTS SUBJECT TO --
YOU HAD JUST SAID THAT THE ACCEPT LANGUAGE HAS AN OR IN IT?
NO, IT HAS AN AND IN IT.
IT HAS AN AND IN IT AND SO IT SAYS EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY GENERAL LAW AND SUBDIVISION B OF THIS RULE. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A CASE T. SAYS WHETHER THAT EQUIPMENT AS PROVIDED BY GENERAL LAW -- EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY GENERAL LAW DEALS WITH B OR NOT.
YEAH, I, I, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT CLEAR ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND I WOULD AGAIN SAY THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED WITH BRIEFS FROM ADVOCATES ON BOTH SIDES IN THE NORMAL JUDICIAL PROCESS.
WITH OUR ASSIST BS YOU'VE ALSO EXHAUSTED YOUR TIME PLUS ADDITIONAL TIMET. SO WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARPSHS THIS MORNING.