Well given that there were only three civil opinions released this week and one is a glorified PCA and two are United Auto cases, I thought I would do a short 3d DCA Watch and head over to the Federal Bar luncheon early to see if Judge Jordan wanted to have a quick game of pick up football in the Bankers Club lobby.

(Judge Gold, don't worry -- you can be all-time-QB!)

But then I came across this interview of Nicole Kidman discussing her marriage:

'I've explored obsession. I've explored loss and love in terms of being in a grief-stricken place, I've explored strange sexual fetish stuff, I've explored the mundane aspect of marriage, and monogamy,' Kidman said.

'You work on it,' she went on of marriage. 'It's a very extraordinary, adventurous place to be: incredibly raw, incredibly dangerous and you're very much out at sea. You're exposed. You could drown.'

'When you commit to someone like that, you live and die together by that decision.'

Holy hail -- is this a marriage or Basic Instinct?

All I can say is Tom, you really did a number on her.

I want to focus on this United Auto opinion by Judge Shepherd because I think it encapsulates the way this Judge approaches the law.

As usual, it's a second-tier cert appeal of a circuit court appellate division PCA of a county court decision that went against United Auto.

The first thing that's notable is Judge Shepherd spends an unusual amount of time detailing the basis for the Court's jurisdiction. In fact, you don't even get to the facts section until page 3. This is consistent with the Judge's limited jurisprudential approach.

The second thing I found interesting is you don't learn the outcome of the appeal until page 7 -- most judges will summarize the outcome (affirmed, reversed etc.) up front.

Way to keep your audience guessing, Judge!

Third, this is another example of Judge Shepherd taking a very close and narrow read of a statute -- in this case section 627.736(4)(b), which apparently does not require an insurer to ever respond to an insured's request for payment under a PIP policy:

In fact, carefully parsed, it is clear there is neither a requirement nor a deadline for a personal injury protection insurer to respond to a request for payment.

So under the statute an insurer can simply ignore a request forever.

Finally, there are Judge Shepherd's usual turns of phrase:

However, actions have consequences.

And this:

Accordingly, while there is no absolute deadline for the payment of a properly presented personal injury protection claim, there is a cost—and, indeed, ever increasing risk—to a miscreant insurer who does not treat its customers properly. This is the manner in which the legislature has chosen to regulate insurers in matters of this type.

Here that, all you "miscreant insurers" out there in "miscreant insurer land"?

Don't blame us -- blame your legislature (yet another recurrent theme).

Ok, I got me some football to play!

Sorry I'm a little late with this morning's post, but I became transfixed by Drew Barrymore on the CBS Early Show. What a cutie, I totally understand why some poor schlub would make an entire documentary simply about trying to meet her.

Well, Judge Jordan just won't stay out of the news.

John Pacenti reports on yesterday's orders:

Two medical associations suing on behalf of poor children seeking basic health care from the state earned two critical victories in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan in Miami granted class action status Wednesday and denied the state’s dismissal motion.

The Florida Pediatric Society and the Florida Academy of Pediatric Dentistry claimed in the 2005 lawsuit that the state violates federal law by denying preventative health care to more than 1.5 million children.

Jordan said all Medicaid-eligible children under 21 who reside or will reside in Florida are part of the class. He rejected a claim by the state Agency for Health Care Administration that class-action status should be denied because not all class members are known at this time.

Actually, it's a pretty terse order for this Judge.

Stuart Singer was appointed class counsel, and the State was represented by Chesterfield H. Smith, Jr. as well as Marcos Jimenez from Kenny Nachwalter.

Magistrate Judge McAliley prepared an R&R recommending certification, which the defendants objected to.

I'm not too sure the Judge liked the number of objections:

Despite this precedent, the Defendants hurl a litany of objections at the R&R. Though the objections are impressive in number, they lack merit.

The defendants also argued a number of factual disputes exist which must be resolved at the certification stage, something the Judge also rejected:

The defendants argue that the R&R applies an incorrect legal standard to determine whether the proposed class satisfies Rule 23's requirements and that I should conclusively resolve factual disputes where there is conflicting evidence. As is evident from the legal standard applicable to class actions, conclusive resolution of factual disputes is not required. I may accept the plaintiffs’ allegations as true and may “consider the merits of the case to the degree necessary to determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 will be satisfied.” See Vega, 564 F.3d at 1265-66.

Finally, the Judge denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and though the order is also somewhat terse, it is lightened by the Court's Gonzaga analysis (a case right up there with Venetian Salami).

It will be very interesting to see where this one leads.