Tomorrow (or today if you are reading this on Friday) Circuit Judge David Miller will be hearing an emergency motion at 7:15 AM (yes 7:15 AM!!!) on this lawsuit:
GOLDMAN, NACCARATO, PATTERSON,
VELA, & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLE,
Miami-Dade County State Attorney;
Administrative Office of the Courts of the
11th Judicial Circuit, JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMISSION, an Agency of the State of Florida,
RICHARD ROSENBAUM, “Private Court-
Appointed Counsel” or attorneys representing
“indigent for costs” defendants.
This gist of the lawsuit filed by attorney John R. Sutton: Goldman Naccarato, a well known and well respected court reporting firm, demanded that JAC pay their firm for 40 thousand dollars in unpaid court reporting bills. JAC responded in the manner that we would expect this wonderful agency to do- they terminated Goldman Naccarato's contract, including the six felony courtrooms the firm was contracted to cover.
HERE IS PART OF THE LAWSUIT'S REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT:
32. The Plaintiff anticipates certain orders of transcripts after being terminated by JAC.
33. The Plaintiff recognizes and wishes to comply with its duties to timely provide proper transcription of all necessary proceedings.
34. The Plaintiff is unable to identify a responsible party for the invoices.
35. The Plaintiff has no available remedy as a matter of law and has come to
equity with clean hands.
36. This is a very real and emergent controversy for which there is an adversarial relationship regarding the payment of the Plaintiff’s invoices for orders in the future after termination.
37. This controversy is as emergent as is the operation of the Circuit Courts in and for Miami Dade County which require reporters to function.
38. The Plaintiff emphasizes its satisfaction in working for the State Attorney, Public Defender, and the Circuit Courts, but suffers the quagmire of substantial and sometimes overnight transcription, and delivery of lengthy transcripts of court proceedings when the Plaintiff is terminated by JAC and has no certain right to payment by any known party. As such, all interested parties are named herein.
39. The Plaintiff’s business is at stake as its reporters will resign if prompt payment under contract is not assured and the Exhibit 2 termination overruled as an improper tortious interference with contractual rights.
40. Upon knowledge and belief, it is clear and apparent that PCAC and indigent for costs attorneys will order both transcripts of court proceedings and deposition transcripts.
41. In contradiction to the above, it is clear and obvious that appellate courts will enforce prompt delivery of transcripts.
42. The Plaintiff wishes to carry out its duties under Exhibit 1 and urges interested Defendants to assist in the development of a certainly reliable plan for compensation.
43. This Court should take jurisdiction of this matter and find that it is a matter of great importance and schedule an appropriate evidentiary hearing to evaluate the status of the conflict in Exhibits 1 and 2 and thereupon render instructions to the Plaintiff so that it is not required to deliver transcripts on penalty of fine or contempt and then without payment.
44. It is the Plaintiff’s concern and belief that the JAC terminated its contractual relationship with Plaintiff as retaliation for Plaintiff filing a Complaint for outstanding payments.
45. The Plaintiff has elected to file this action to identify the predicament and obtain instruction from this Court regarding transcription of depositions and court proceedings including trial transcripts, to Defendants represented by court-appointed counsel or who have been declared insolvent for costs
Wherefore the Plaintiff prays for Declaratory Judgment, emergency evidentiary hearing and requests this Court order all Defendants appear in Miami Dade County Circuit Court to present its analysis of the problem and solution to the problem.
Rumpole says: when JAC refuses to pay court reporters, our clients suffer. In a sense, the prosecution is getting through the back door, what they couldn't get through the front door: doing away with depositions in felony cases. If JAC prevails, we will enter an era where your clients will truly only be able to get the justice they can afford to pay for.
Many of our readers know the court reporting firm and the principals who run it. We have had no contact with them on this matter whatsoever. We obtained the lawsuit from another source. However, it might be nice to tell the reporters that you stand behind them, and offer them whatever assistance they may need- from a donation to pay for costs of the litigation, to offering to be a witness in their case. We as defense attorneys are strongest as advocates for our clients when we speak with one united voice. In this matter more than the welfare of this court reporting firm is at stake. Our ability to defend our clients is also being directly threatened by JAC. We need to support these court reporters as they "strike back." May the force be with them.
See you in court.
JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG
WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM. Winner of the prestigious Cushing Left Anterior Descending Artery Award.