ADR:   “Motion is DENIED. Instead, the Court will fashion a new form of alternative dispute resolution, to wit: at 4:00 P.M. on Friday, June 30, 2006, counsel shall convene … on the front steps of the Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse … Each lawyer shall be entitled to be accompanied by one paralegal who shall act as an attendant and witness. At that time and location, counsel shall engage in one (1) game of ‘rock, paper, scissors.’ The winner of this engagement shall be entitled to select the location for the 30(b)(6) deposition to be held somewhere in Hillsborough County during the period July 11-12, 2006.” (Avista Mgmt., Inc. v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 6:05-CV1430ORL31JGG, 2006 WL 1562246, (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2006).)
Fore!:  “Plaintiff states that ‘elements of the Contract are evinced in the documents which contain, among other things, the terms of the agreement … .’ This attempt to change arguments between the complaint and the brief is like trying to change clubs after hitting the golf ball.” (Giuliani v. Duke University (M.D.NC. 2009) 2009 WL 1408869 * 3.)
Mopping Up:  “We know at the Court of Appeal what you think – what trial judges think of us. That we survey the battlefield months and years after the battle has been waged, and we shoot the survivors. There’s some truth there.” (Trial transcript excerpt relating to counsel what an appellate jurist said during an evidence seminar for trial judges.)
The Living Dead:  “‘Even so, while the plaintiffs’ second, third, and fourth causes might have been moribund when the case returned from the [high court’s] denial of certiorari, they were not declared dead and properly buried in a formal final judgment. The not quite yet dead corpse was still walking … .’” (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 695.)
Judicial Smoothie:  “However—to throw a couple metaphors into a blender here, just because a vexatious litigant can change his spots does not mean he or she has turned a new leaf.”  (Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 77, 86.)
Big Bite:  The Civil Code definition of nuisance “is so broad that it could be applied indiscriminately to everything” and allowing it to substitute for traditional torts “would allow nuisance to become a monster that would devour in one gulp the entire law of tort.” (El Escorial Owners’ Ass’n v. DLC Plastering, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1348 (internal quotations and citations omitted).)
Subterranean Engineering:  “We also observe that trial attorneys who prosecute their own appeals, such as appellant, may have ‘tunnel vision.’ Having tried the case themselves, they become convinced of the merits of their cause.” (Estate of Gilkison (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1449-1450.)
Fantasy Land:  “We can hardly believe that any trial lawyer would seriously anticipate an opportunity to examine the jurors after they were sworn. Although that opportunity may be enticing, its contemplation is wholly fanciful.” (Bly-Magee v. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 318, 324.)
Sugar Coating:  “What the heck?!? At one point, the trial court commented, ‘This is one of the most screwed up cases I’ve ever seen.’ We heartily agree.” (Essex Insurance Co. v. Heck (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1515.)
Legal Scholarship:  “This is an argument only a lawyer could love; it rests on semantics rather than on reason.” (Gallo v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1375, 1380.)
Us and Them:  “This case comes to us on stipulated facts. The parties agree that summary judgment in favor of someone is appropriate.” (Century Surety Co. v. United Pacific Insurance Co. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254.)
Stimulating Reading:  “After this mind-numbing journey through RCRA, we return to the provision that is, after all, the one before us for examination.” (American Mining Congress v. United States EPA, et al. (D.C. Cir. 1987) 824 F.2d 1177, 1189.)