Kurt Barton was the CEO and President of Triton Financial before the SEC shut it down. After his 39-count indictment on a host of fraud and money laundering charges, the District Court appointed two lawyers and a forensic accountant for Barton’s defense and granted a four-month continuance for them to prepare. Id. at 2. Barton was convicted, however, on all 39 counts and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Id. at 3. Barton filed this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending that (a) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, in part because of a supposed conflict he was undoubtedly aware of from the start, and (b) the Government committed a Brady violation by failing to provide complete records to his forensic accountant. Id. The District Court thoroughly debunked each point and underscored the overwhelming evidence of guilt unaffected by Barton’s complaints. Id. at 5-24.
The Right Number of Summary Judgment Motions? It’s Not 25.
Hernandez v. Frazier, No. SA:11-CV-0009-DAE, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2014)(Ezra, J.)
In this patent case involving oil and gas well technology, the District Court extended the dispositive motion deadline seven times at the request of one or both sides. See slip op. at 2. Frazier filed 23 timely motions for partial summary judgment before the last deadline. He then filed a 24th motion six months after the last deadline with leave of court. Id. at 2-3. Ten months after the deadline, he was back at it, seeking leave to file a 25th motion directed to the plaintiffs’ damages claim. Id. at 3. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s four-part standard for good cause under Rule 16(b)(4), see S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. South Trust Bank of Ala., N.A., 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003), the District Court found that Frazier’s excuse for delay was unsatisfactory, the motion’s importance was minimal, and the plaintiffs would suffer prejudice by “having to engage in further discovery.” Id. at 8. The District Court assigned little or no weight to the fourth factor—the availability of a continuance as a remedy—because the case had been pending for over three years.” Id. (underscore in original).
Three Judge Panel Issues Series of Orders on Attorneys’ Fees Applications in Voting Rights Act Litigation
These two January 8 orders addressed the attorneys’ fees applications in these redistricting challenges.
In Perez v. Perry, the plaintiffs sought interim fees on the basis of the preliminary injunctive relief they obtained. Slip op. at 1-4. But the three-judge panel determined that (a) their interim victory did not make them “prevailing parties,” and (b) a final decision on the merits would determine whether they ultimately qualified as “prevailing parties.” Id. at 3-4.
In Davis v. Perry, the interim relief the plaintiffs achieved became part of the State’s election plan, meaning there was no chance such relief could be reversed, dissolved, or otherwise undone by a final decision in this case. Thus, the panel concluded that the plaintiffs were “prevailing parties.” Slip op. at 6-15. The balance of the 58-page opinion parsed through the attorneys’ fees evidence, addressing when out-of-state rates trump rates in the forum, as well as many common objections to attorneys’ fees evidence. Id. at 15-58.