Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Tourgeman v. Collins Financial Svcs. (9th Cir. - June 25, 2014)

With all due respect, when the majority opinion devotes 31 single-spaced, facially persuasive pages explaining in detail why the district court erroneously granted summary judgment, I think it's incumbent on the dissent to explain why s/he disagrees.  Rather than simply saying:  "I respectfully dissent. As I view the record, the trial court got it right. I would affirm."

Which is what Judge Farris does here.

I'm not saying that you've got to write a dozen pages explaining your reasoning.  A paragraph or two might well suffice.  But you've got to at least summarize the district court's reasoning and why it seems persuasive to you.  Especially since the majority has spent 31 pages demolishing it.

Now, at 84 years of age, Judge Farris is perhaps entitled to a little leeway.  Brevity's especially fine for someone who's seen and done a lot in his life.

But not this much.  Not in a published opinion, anyway.