4 ms·
>"At the end of the hearing, Uber's lawyer Arturo Gonzalez made a last-ditch plea that he had a scheduling conflict. He is scheduled to pick a jury in a differe
by free_everybody 9y ago
>"At the end of the hearing, Uber's lawyer Arturo Gonzalez made a last-ditch plea that he had a scheduling conflict. He is scheduled to pick a jury in a different trial on November 27, the Monday after Thanksgiving."
The judge told Arturo he wouldn't reschedule for him. He's not barring him from the courtroom; the judge is simply saying he's not making any more accomodations for Uber.
- KGIII 9y agoAh, okay. Thanks. A judge can kick a specific attorney out of the courtroom, but I think the standards are pretty high for doing so. I don't know if that's just custom or an established rule. Judges have some awesome powers inside their courtrooms. I find law to be a pretty fascinating subject but that is a long post for another day.
- CodeWriter23 9y agoYes that, and Alsup seized the opportunity be an asshole right back to Uber's counsel for all their douchebaggery in this case. I'll bet they were laughing it up at Judge Happy Hour this evening
- davidfrankl 9y agoSure but presumably, two judges scheduled events pertaining to the same attorney at the same time. I took the question to ask more or less, "Is their any judicial obligation to avoid scheduling conflict, when the attorney is already obligated to be present at a different court-related function". I assume this is usually granted by courtesy, but a fed up judge has no obligation to do so.
- SEMW 9y agoWhere did you get that that particular attorney is "obligated to be present"? He's not being sued, Uber is. Uber obviously has to be there in some capacity, but they have no shortage of lawyers, both inhouse and external counsel. (That particular one is external, he works for Morrison & Foerster). IANAL.