Robert Gilbert

Showing posts with label Robert Gilbert. Show all posts

Wes Parsons and the Logic of Trying Canker Cases

The DBR has a sympathetic article on Bobby Gilbert's ongoing efforts to hold the State accountable for destroying all of our citrus trees. In it, Bobby says these cases have been one of the greatest learning experiences of his career, and that it has mostly taken over his practice for the last year:

Over the past year, Gilbert said the case has taken over almost his entire practice and his free time. He expects the amount of time to lessen moving forward as colleagues including Nancy La Vista and others at Lytal Reiter Clark Fountain & Williams in West Palm Beach, Michael Pucillo with Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo in West Palm Beach, and Jamie Cole at Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske in Fort Lauderdale increase their involvement.

Gilbert and his colleagues have spent large amounts of money on the litigation, but he declined to comment how much they have paid out of pocket.

Gilbert and his team will get a piece of the Broward verdict, but he would not say how much the plaintiff lawyers would seek.

La Vista said the cases were taken on a contingency basis.

“If you don’t have contingency fee cases, then you’ll never be able to protect someone’s constitutional rights,” she said. “You’ll never have a day in court for someone that can’t afford a lawyer.”

So for us it is admirable that Bobby and his team keep up the fight, and we wish him well.

Meanwhile, the lead attorney for the State, Adorno attorney Wes Parsons, is getting paid $275 an hour to defend these cases to the death. But for Wes, this is a public service. Listen to his reasoning:

“Even if you were to start counting defense dollars versus tree payments, I don’t think it would work out to be cheaper to give money to plaintiffs counsel and their constituents than it is to pay lawyers to defend you,” Parsons said. “The people who will make money are the class members and the plaintiff counsel. That money is going to presumably come out of general revenue of the state of Florida at a time when it’s suffering budget cuts and doesn’t have enough money for schools or law enforcement.”

But it has plenty of money to pay Adorno to try multiple canker cases?

Apparently, for Wes, it makes more sense for the State to spend taxpayer money on private lawyers to work up and try canker cases over and over again. That, apparently, is economically more sensible than sitting at a table and working out a reasonable resolution so that affected consumers can receive real renumeration for their lost trees, and not some nonsense voucher at Wal-Mart.

And yes, the plaintiffs' lawyers who worked so hard on this should get paid, too, just like Wes.

Citrus Canker Update

"The state clearly won this case, and I wasn't going to leave that room until I was sure that was reflected.''

That's juror Kevin Edwards, commenting on the remarkable defense verdict in the Broward citrus canker case. Remember, this was a trial where liability was presumed, and the jurors were only deciding damages.

Plaintiffs' attorney Bobby Gilbert, who called the verdict a "partial victory and a partial defeat," was already talking appeal:

After the verdict was read, several jurors told homeowners' attorney Robert Gilbert that state scientists' assertion that the trees were subject to future infections was credible. Gilbert had fought to bar that testimony from trial.
''The judge allowed them to hear flawed science, and that was the determining factor in the jury's decision,'' Gilbert said. ``I wouldn't use the word insult, but the award was far less than full compensation, and we're not satisfied.''
The state embarked on its aggressive eradication program in 2000 to prevent the spread of canker -- a disease harmless to humans but one that blemishes fruit and debilitates trees. Despite a decade of work and about $1 billion in costs, the program failed. The state and the federal government abandoned the practice in 2006.
Attorneys for the state looked at the verdict as a partial victory, taking note of the praise jurors found in their evidence.
That could bode well for the state, which faces similar court challenges in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Lee and Orange counties. The state destroyed about 578,000 trees ''exposed'' to canker, including 133,700 in Broward and 249,000 in Miami-Dade.
''This was a defense verdict,'' said state attorney Wes Parsons. ``This was within the realm of what we thought might happen. We felt the trees lacked value of any kind.''
APPEALS LIKELY
Both sides are expected to appeal the decision -- the state wanting to pay less and attorneys for homeowners hoping a new jury will raise the value of the trees.
Several homeowners, present for the 7 p.m. reading of the verdict, expressed disappointment. ''This is a big defeat,'' said Tim Farley of Parkland, who lost eight trees to the program in 2000. ``The Department of Agriculture put on a smoke screen, and the jury didn't see through it. This is not just and fair compensation.''

Hmm, as I suspected yesterday, this is not good -- indeed, the jury found the State's science "credible." That's a big problem, unless Bobby can get the appellate court to keep it out.

What to do with the other cases?

Still Deliberating? Oh-Oh.

That's the Broward jury in the citrus canker action brought by Bobby Gilbert:

Unable to reach a verdict in its first day, the 12-member panel returns Tuesday to continue deliberations in a case that could put extra money in the pockets of tens of thousands of homeowners whose trees the state destroyed in a failed program to eradicate citrus canker.
A positive outcome for more than 58,000 local homeowners won't necessarily mean a check is going to arrive in the mail anytime soon. If the state loses, it is likely to appeal. The verdict could influence four similar lawsuits pending in other parts of the state, including Miami-Dade County.
Jurors, who were handed the case early Monday after two weeks of tedious testimony, must decide whether the state shortchanged homeowners when it gave them a $100 Wal-Mart gift card for the first tree lost and $55 each for the rest.
''The constitutional requirement of full compensation means that the property owner must be paid completely for the whole loss resulting from the taking,'' Judge Ronald Rothschild said in his instructions to jurors.
Lawyers for the state insist the cost of replacing a tree should equal the price of an easily transplantable tree at a nursery, plus the cost of fertilizing it for several years and 5.3 percent interest per year.
Under their formula, homeowners should collectively receive $4.1 million to $4.8 million for the 133,700 trees destroyed -- well below what already has been paid out to tree owners in Broward County.
So it's up to jurors to decide whether tree owners are entitled to receive more money under the Florida Constitution's requirement of ''full compensation'' when the government takes private property.
Not a simple thing. Jurors must determine the actual value of the 133,700 citrus trees destroyed in Broward during the state's long-running canker eradication program.
One tool could be a formula that takes into account a tree's height and health, among other factors. A simpler solution would be for the jury to require the state to award a lump sum to be divided among thousands of homeowners.
Said alternate juror Larissa Lockett, who said she has yet to make up her mind: ``I think it's very hard to decide. It's not something where you can just pick one side.''

Respectfully, yes it is. You are a juror. It is your duty and obligation to "pick a side."

Picking A Jury

I guess all the bitter gun-lovin' anti-immigrant Bible-thumpers that Obama has been going on about showed up en masse in Bobby Gilbert's courtroom yesterday. Can someone explain to these kind folks that Bobby is actually trying to help homeowners get relief from an illegal government taking:

There was no shortage of opinions on the first day of jury selection in the class action lawsuit brought by some 60,000 Broward homeowners against the state of Florida for destroying their citrus trees.
''A shameless money grab,'' was the way one juror described the lawsuits.
Others said they question spending money for tree reimbursement in tight times, when schools, medical issues and public safety concerns are pressing.
Another juror said she didn't think it was fair the state destroyed so many trees. When asked whether she could be a fair and impartial juror, she said no.
The issue is whether jurors feel they already have their minds made up.
On Monday, one juror called the process a 'waste of time and taxpayers' money.'' Later, when plaintiffs' attorney Bobby Gilbert compared the taking of a tree to the taking of 15 feet of property, the juror acknowledged that he'd ``have to think about it.''
Gilbert repeatedly made the point that the U.S. Constitution requires citizens to be paid for their property taken by the government, whether it is property for a roadway or citrus trees.

The waste of time and taxpayer money is the State's refusal to come to the table and settle this case on a reasonable basis. Suing governments is always the same -- no one wants to run it like a business, make an assessment, and come to the table for a negotiated compromise that is in everyone's best interests. Instead, they have government lawyers who can bill endlessly with no consequences, and they are playing with funny money -- our taxes.

U.S. Constitution? Oh Bobby!

Bobby Bobby, come on -- that moldy old document? You might as well throw in that quaint musty Geneva Convention treaty in there too, who gives a crap about any of that anymore?

BREAKING -- Bobby Gilbert Wins Canker Liability Phase

Doesn't exactly roll off your tongue, but that's what happened:

The state owes fair compensation to nearly 41,000 Palm Beach County residents who had their citrus trees cut down during a failed decade-long effort to eradicate a harmful bacteria, a judge ruled.
Another case is under way in Broward County, and similar lawsuits are pending in Lee, Miami-Dade and Orange counties.
The class-action lawsuit was filed against the state Agriculture Department on behalf of David and Lillian Mendez of Boca Raton, who had their citrus trees cut down in 2001 as the state tried to stop the spread of canker.
The court found that the destruction of the trees constituted a ''taking'' under the Florida Constitution, ''requiring full and just compensation,'' Circuit Judge Robin Rosenberg wrote in her ruling late Friday.
A jury trial is set for March 31 to determine how much the state owes the plaintiffs.
''We were on the side of the good fight, and the judge recognized that the state can't take people's property without compensation,'' plaintiffs' lawyer Julie Littky-Rubin said Monday.
The Agriculture Department had no immediate comment.

Jury trial next up on damages.

The Problems With Suing the State

Poor Bobby Gilbert has to actually try the canker case against the State of Florida, and by all accounts he is doing a bang-up job:

Pete Timmer, who retired in May after 29 years of work at the University of Florida's Citrus Research and Education Center in Lake Alfred, said in a video deposition taped in September that he suggested as early as 1998 that it would be difficult to eradicate canker, a bacterial disease that mars fruit and weakens trees.
Timmer's deposition was played Thursday in Palm Beach County Circuit Court during the fourth day of a class-action lawsuit being tried to determine the state's liability and whether the state's compensation was adequate for backyard citrus owners who lost their trees during the failed 11-year canker fight.

Timmer testified for the plaintiffs in the suit brought on behalf of more than 40,000 Palm Beach County homeowners whose 66,468 trees were removed as canker officials attempted to stop the disease's spread.

The homeowners are seeking additional compensation beyond the $100 Wal-Mart vouchers offered for the first tree and $55 cash payments for each additional tree.

The trees were removed under a policy that became law in 2002 and required all citrus trees within 1,900 feet of an infected one be taken out, even if they were healthy or showed no symptoms of infection. Prior to 2000, only trees within 125 feet of an infected tree were destroyed.

That meant an expansion of the removal zone from one-third of an acre to 260 acres, lead plaintiff's attorney Robert Gilbert said Thursday.

Under questioning by Gilbert, Timmer said he became convinced the program should be stopped after the devastating hurricane season of 2004.

"At that point I did not see any point in continuing the program," Timmer said.

Deputy Agriculture Commissioner Craig Meyer also testified Thursday, as Gilbert sought to show that the state knew that canker was already widespread before it implemented the 1,900-foot rule and that it anticipated legal challenges to the policy.

Meyer said he considered canker widespread in two counties at that time - Miami-Dade and Broward - but not in five others where pockets of canker were found.

Gilbert questioned Meyer about the state's position that fresh fruit shipped from a packinghouse is highly unlikely to spread canker.

"Our position is that fruit properly processed and sanitized poses no threat for the transmission of citrus canker," Meyer said.

Meyer also acknowledged that the Florida Department of Agriculture has never had an eradication program aimed at other citrus diseases such as greening, black spot and tristeza.

"I believe there has been a dramatic overreaction to greening," he said. "I could be wrong."

It's fun and exciting to be in a courtroom presenting witnesses, but why is this case at trial? Because the State is not like a normal business, with cost/benefit calculations that must be taken into consideration, the State can pretty much defend a case like this with no concern for the costs or the potential consequences. Nothing comes out-of-pocket to the lawyers defending this case, or their client, so they can afford to take a case like this to trial before someone with a brain determines that it's probably best to resolve this and move on. By that point, of course, Bobby will probably get a big verdict and the price of resolution will have gone up substantially.

Breaking -- Bobby Gilbert Wins Another Round in Citrus Canker Fight

Bobby gets a jury trial in Broward:

In another major legal victory for thousands of South Florida residents, a Broward circuit judge ruled Thursday that a jury -- not the state -- will determine how much the government will have to pay for citrus trees ripped from their back yards during the failed canker eradication program.
Broward Circuit Judge Ron Rothschild rejected the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service's insistence that the trees were a valueless public nuisance because they had been exposed to citrus canker and might spread the disease.
The ruling means there will be a jury trial on the value of more than 133,000 trees owned by more than 72,000 Broward residents.

Does anyone in government ever sit down, analyze a piece of litigation, and decide it is in the best interests of everyone to seriously discuss settlement?

Go Bobby Gilbert!

Opening statements commenced today in the class action brought by Palm Beach County homeowners whose citrus trees were eradicated by the State of Florida:

The Palm Beach County case is the first of five pending lawsuits against the state -- including ones in Broward and Miami-Dade -- to go to trial over efforts to stop the spread of canker. The disease can be transferred by birds, humans and wind, makes fruit blemish and prompts it to drop prematurely. It does not harm humans but threatened the state's citrus industry.
The program to eradicate canker through the removal of citrus trees began in 1995.
''This case is about the deprivation of private property in violation of our state Constitution,'' plaintiffs' attorney Robert Gilbert said. ``Regrettably, the state refuses to accept financial responsibility.''
All citrus trees within a 1,900 foot radius of one infected with canker were ordered destroyed -- even those in yards that appeared to be healthy. About 16.5 million residential, nursery and commercial trees were destroyed statewide, including more than 800,000 from the yards of homeowners.
The program compensated residents with $100 vouchers for the first tree cut down and $55 for each tree after, but has spawned lawsuits from angry homeowners who feel that wasn't enough.
The eradication effort ended in January 2006 after state officials and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which was helping pay for the program, determined that the state's spate of hurricanes had spread the disease beyond containment.
Gilbert said none of the trees removed from the plaintiffs' yards were infected with canker.
''All of these trees were needlessly destroyed,'' Gilbert said.
The state was set to give its opening statements Monday afternoon.

Humm. How was the class defined without an individualized inquiry into whether or not each class member met the class definition?

But Will You (Kevin) Love Me, Tomorrow?

Belated congratulations to Michael Hanzman and Bobby Gilbert, who have formed a new firm together, with new office space in Coral Gables.

This is a blockbuster pairing. Best of luck, gents!

As for Hanzman's former partner Michael Criden, methinks he will be fine.

(Cue Carol King).