For the Plaintiffs:
Natasha Kardassis
Overview
The significance of this court case is that it was the first time a court had to be asked to rule if competitive cheerleading was considered a sport for Title IX purposes. In the case Biediger versus Quinnipiac, Quinnipiac University argued that competitive cheerleading is a sport therefore being able to cut the women’s volleyball team and replace it a women’s cheerleading team but still reporting equal athletic opportunities for men and women under Title IX. When the members of the volleyball team learned that Quinnipiac University was going to terminate their sport and replace it with competitive cheer they filed a lawsuit and brought Quinnipiac to court. With the facts and knowledge of this case, I argue that the Women’s Volleyball team was right in filing lawsuit and that Quinnipiac University violated rules under Title IX.
Title IX
Quinnipiac University receives federal funding so it must comply with rules and regulations set forth by Title IX. Quinnipiac University violated Title IX because of three reasons. The first reason was that Quinnipiac inaccurately reported the numbers of participants on the roster, secondly Quinnipiac counted cross country runners multiple times for their participation in indoor track, outdoor track and cross country which boosted women’s participation and finally competitive cheerleading is not considered so women participants can not be counted under Title IX.
Title IX states ““No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”1 It also has a three- part analysis set out in Title Ix that interoperates whether both sexes are being equally accommodated or not. The first part looks at whether participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to the schools undergraduate enrollment.2
Argument 1: Roster Manipulation
In 2009-2010, male undergraduates made up 38.13 percent of the population while women undergraduates made up 61.87 percent.3 Sports had to have equal percentages of men and women participating in athletics in relation to how many students attended the university. The way Quinnipiac was counting their players on the different athletic roster was misleading showing that there were equal opportunities between men and women athletic when at times there were not.
Quinnipiac University was underreporting the participation of men in athletics and over reporting the participation of women in athletics. For example the men's baseball and lacrosse teams would drop players before reporting data to the Department of Education and reinstate them after the reports were submitted. On the other hand, the women's softball team would add players before the reporting date, knowing the additional players would not be on the team in the spring.4 Therefore, the reason to cut the women’s volleyball team was seen as justified under the numerical figures when in actuality the way the figures were calculated was misleading, violating Title IX.
Argument 2: cross country and track participants
Secondly, the University has one men’s cross country team but a women’s cross country team, and a women’s outdoor and indoor track team. In this case, many women participating in the women’s outdoor and indoor track team were being counted three times instead of just being counted once. The track team lacked the facilities to have sporting events, they lacked coaching staff because there was only one coach and they were not receiving the same scholarships and funding as other varsity sports. Because they were counting women from the cross-country team to the track team three times, the numbers seemed larger than they actually were for women participants versus men participants.
Argument 3: Cheerleading
The biggest question in this case is whether cheerleading is considered a legitimate intercollegiate varsity sport or not. An activity can be considered a sport under Title IX if it meets specific criteria. It must have coaches, practices, competitions during a defined season and a governing organization.5 The activity also must have competition as its primary goal not just the support of other athletic teams. Even though cheerleading may have competing events, its primary goal is to be on the sideline and support other teams. In my opinion, cheerleading should not be considered a sport at the expense of cutting a legitimate women’s team sport. Men’s teams would never lose funding if there was a choice between cutting the men’s basketball team and implement a men’s cheer squad instead which is considered sex discrimination.
The office of Civil Rights, which enforces Title IX, states a number of factors that classes an activity as a sport. It must have athletic elements, structure, the competition it fostered and how the experience of competing on a team compared to other varsity sports. In 2008 the OCR stated that cheerleading was not a sport and cannot be considered under the Title IX ruling. Cheerleading has athletic elements to the sport but as governance it does not have a clear structure. Although Quinnipiac and seven universities started a governing cheer structure called the NCSTA ( National Competitive Stunt and Tumbling) there was no clear governance, structure, strategy or progressive systems of competition.6 Because cheerleading does not have one governing body like the NCAA, the rules from competition to competition are different.
The competitive cheer team would not receive any locker space at Quinnipiac University, it has to have separate insurance rather than the “catastrophic insurance” provided by the NCAA, and finally the team was not considered a structured administration because it did no off campus recruiting. The court stated, “ A division one team must participate in off campus recruiting in order to field a competitive squad.” 7
Conclusion
With the two factors of not counting the 30 cheerleaders on the squad and subtracting cross country runners that participate in track, there was a difference between the numbers of men and women participating in athletics and the amount of students there were in the school. With this the court ruled the Quinnipiac University was not in compliance with Title IX. It is also important to note that the judge was not saying the cheerleaders can’t be considered athletes or that it is not an intense sport, the judge was ruling based on the structure and administration of the sport therefore not being able to count under Title IX.
For the Defense:
Juan Figueira
Why Quinnipiac University’s decision does not discriminate
Overview of the Facts
On April 16th, 2009, Quinnipiac University women volleyball players Stephanie Biediger, Kayla Lawler, Erin Overdevest, Kristen Corinaldesi, along with Quinnipiac Volleyball coach Robin Lamott Sparks filed a complaint accusing Quinnipiac University of discriminatory misconduct, especially in the manner women’s sports teams were managed by the university. The catalyst behind such a controversial decision was to induct a competitive women’s cheerleading team, by consequentially eliminating the women’s volleyball team, men’s track team, and men’s golf team. The decision by Quinnipiac was made in March 2009 and sparked significant controversy due to the magnitude and effects of such decision.
Issue at Stake
Some of the most delicate consequences in this case can point to the fact that many of the women athletes on the team received financial scholarships from the university. However, despite the number of inconsistencies that Quinnipiac’s decision could have entailed the plaintiffs and defendant agreed to contest only one allegation. This allegation framed by the plaintiff states that Quinnipiac’s decision violates Title IX (explained in last post) and discriminates against women.
“Although the plaintiffs allege several theories for relief under Title IX, the parties agreed
to sever and try independently the plaintiffs’ first claim: that Quinnipiac discriminates on the
basis of sex in its allocation of athletic participation opportunities.”1
Therefore, in this brief, I will focus solely on this issue as I try to argue in favor of the defendant, Quinnipiac University.
Summary of the Plaintiff
Since I will be arguing against the plaintiffs it is of considerable importance to summarize the crucial points of the plaintiff’s complaint. These points were the ones considered in framing the argument and issues I will be addressing. All of the following points are juxtaposed within the realm of Title IX.
By no longer offering the sport at stake, Quinnipiac discriminates on the basis of sex
Quinnipiac University manages its programs in a way that offers male athletes more opportunities compared women
The institution should offer equal opportunities
Brief
In the following statement I will argue in favor of the defendant why Quinnipiac is not discriminating in their decision to terminate the women’s volleyball team. It is important to recall that the plaintiff alleges that the University violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which state that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”2 Moreover, Title IX purports ten points that help determine fair treatment. Two important points relate directly with the plaintiffs’ complaint: The first point is whether the managing and selection of teams and team members accommodates the interests of male and female athletes equally; and secondly, fair and equal provision of supplies to male and female teams. This last point ties directly with the plaintiffs’ argument that Sparks was not provided equal means to coach the women’s volleyball team, therefore, it lead to poor results.
I will show that Quinnipiac University’s decision was not in violation of Title IX. First of all, the decision to eliminate the team was not a discriminatory decision against a women’s team. The rationale of the decision was to protect the university’s competition, communal, and economic interests. The women’s volleyball team was not the only team affected by this decision. The men’s golf and outdoor track teams would also be eliminated under this decision.
Secondly, as of 2009, Quinnipiac University offers ten women sports and nine men sports. If the decision to eliminate the women’s volleyball, men’s golf and outdoor track teams proceeds, then there will still be ten women teams and only seven men sport teams. This is considering that the university inducts a women’s competitive cheerleading team. This kind of decision would favor women athletes and equate Quinnipiac’s sports culture more with the university’s student-body culture. The approximate female-to-male ratio in Quinnipiac is close to 60-40, therefore, with the decision the female-to-male sports teams ratio will be 10-7, if we consider that competitive cheerleading could become an intercollegiate sport. The school looks to preserve its interests and the volleyball is a team that has not caused results for the institution. Quinnipiac has a right to look for alternatives that will better the entire program.
Finally, regarding the treatment of the athletes, the plaintiffs mentioned Quinnipiac University’s system in employing a target number to fill spots in a roster. In the past, the university would impose ceilings on men’s teams and floors on women’s teams. The plaintiff claims that in this sense, the university favors men’s rosters because men’s teams are essentially composed of more players. Even though the data proves that men’s rosters have more players, women rosters still have more players compared to the NCAA average of women per team. Therefore, this is not a matter of discriminating against women, but rather a matter of following a trend that rules not only in Quinnipiac, but also the entire system. Women rosters in Quinnipiac have more players on teams than the NCAA average of all teams.
Word count = 870
Monday, November 14, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Baltimore Orioles Limited vs. Northshore Sports Inc.
Bramjot Uberoi
For the Plaintiff
In the case, Baltimore Orioles v. Regan, or properly known as Baltimore Orioles Limited v. North Shore Sports Inc., the Baltimore Orioles wants the Court and Cook County (Ill.) Circuit Court Judge Albert Green to decide that the original card, the copies of the line-up card, and related items also being sold by Regan. A key related item that Regan took from the Baltimore Orioles is the line-up card from the previous game, in which Cal Ripken tied Lou Gehrig's record of 2,130 consecutive games. The plaintiff, the Baltimore Orioles Limited believes that these items do not belong to Regan, but belonged to the team because they are items that Phil Regan used while he was within the scope of employment. The line-up cards are property of the Baltimore Orioles and Phil Regan uses these line-up cards in order to execute the duties of his employment. He does not have the right to take items from the company, make copies of the items, and then sell both the original and the copies to third parties for his own financial benefit.
Summary or Statement of the Facts:
To begin the statement of the facts, the incident when Phil Regan filled out the lineup card for the game that Cal Ripken broke baseball’s consecutive game records was on September 6, 1995. Phil Regan worked for the Baltimore Orioles as the team’s Manager. Phil Regan made five carbon copies and took one with him after the game, giving it to his daughter. Phil Regan stated that he gave it to his daughter so that she could take care of the card. Later in the year after Phil Regan left the Orioles, he arranged for the card to be auctioned off by using North Shore Sports, a telephone auction service. The collector interested in the lineup card, Mark Lewis, agreed to directly buy the card from Regan for $15,000. After purchasing the card, Mark Lewis utilized North Shore Sports Inc. and wanted to sell it to Jim Ancell for $35,650. However, at this time the Baltimore Orioles won a temporary restraining order to prevent Ancell from purchasing the card and claimed that the card was the team’s property. Hence from there, the Orioles asked Cook County (Ill.) Circuit Court Judge Albert Green to take possession of the card as well as the card used in the previous game as Cal Ripken tied Lou Gehrig’s consecutive games streak. North Shore Sports had possession of the items until the December 21 hearing.
Argument:
Initially, the line-up cards are the property of the Baltimore Orioles so they should stay within the property rights of the team. It does not justify Phil Regan’s possession of the lineup card because he uses the lineup cards everyday for work. The Baltimore Orioles organization pays for the lineup cards and since Phil Regan is an employee of the organization, he has privileges, not rights, to use the card. Phil Regan essentially stole physical property from the Orioles organization and sold it for his personal gain. Regan cannot argue lack of capacity because he was in a sober, practical mindset when he made the five copies of the lineup cards while also taking the lineup card from the previous game with the intent to sell it for profit.
In addition, the duty of the manager is to turn in the lineup cards to the umpiring crew so the umpires knows what substitutions are to be made. Therefore, it is not within the scope of employment to make copies for one’s own keepsake. His responsibility is to give the lineup cards to the umpire and not take it for personal use.
PHIL REGAN WAS AN EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. JUST LIKE ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE, ONE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE ITEMS FROM AN OFFICE OR WORKSPACE AND SELL IT FOR PERSONAL PROFIT; WHICH LEADS ME TO A CRUCIAL CONTENTION IN THIS CASE…
Just like lineup cards, other items from the MLB teams such as baseball bats and gloves are not to be sold by players or managers.
A. Precedent – On Tuesday March 12, 2002, Ruben Rivera was cut from the New York Yankees for taking a bat and glove from the New York Yankees locker room and selling it for $2,500. The locker room is supposedly a sacred place for players and managers because they spend so much time in the facilities that it is punishable to take and sell property from the team in order to make financial gain.
1. Very similar precedent set for the Baltimore Orioles Limited v. North Shore Sports Inc. The lineup cards are property of the Baltimore Orioles club. If the manager is allowed to make copies of the lineup card and sell it for personal profit, what would stop the entire team from taking property from the clubhouse and selling it for a profit.
2. Thus, taking property from the clubhouse leads to a slippery slope of theft THAT WOULD BE NEAR DIFFICULT TO END IF THE JURY LETS THIS INCIDENT SLIDE BY!
Conclusion:
In summation, the Baltimore Orioles organization has the right of possession of all the lineup cards that Phil Regan used during Cal Ripken’s quest to achieve the streak of consecutive games played. Using precedent, an employee of an MLB organization does not have the right to take property of the clubhouse and sell it for profit. It is not within the scope of employment for Phil Regan to take the lineup cards, make copies, and sell it. His responsibility is to give it to the umpiring crew. Lastly, Regan was within capacity and had intentions of taking the Baltimore Orioles’ property because the incident was clearly planned out.
Tiana Myers
For the Defense
The party in which I will represent is Phil Regan. He is a former Baltimore Orioles manager. The complaint that is being addressed is Baltimore Orioles Limited vs. Northshore Sports Incorporated. However, Phil Regan is considered to be a defendant in this case as well.
Phil Regan was the Baltimore Orioles manager until he was later released of his duties as manager. While Regan was the manager for the team, a monumental event happened in baseball. In September 1995, Cal Ripken Jr. broke the all-time record for playing in consecutive games. As stated previously, Phil Regan was the Orioles manager at the time.
The complaint of this case says the Orioles went to the court for a temporary restraining order preventing purchases from being completed. The Orioles wanted to block the sale of the carbon copies of the card that was used during the historic game when Ripken set a new record for a player playing consecutive games in baseball. The Baltimore Orioles fired Regan for “possession of stolen goods.” However, Regan did not steal the card or the carbon copies. After the game the team never asked for the cards. The cards were routinely left in the dugout for the cleanup crews to discard. The original copy of the card is currently in the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York.
During the time of the case, Judge Albert Green took possession of the card because Regan had auctioned off the copy of the card he had to a buyer, Mark Lewis for $15,000. Regan had the ability to auction this card off because he arranged the auction through a telephone auction service. The Baltimore Orioles organization argues Regan did not have the right to sale the card or any copies. This could be considered a case of ownership.
In this case the ownership of this property, the carbon copy of the card in which Ripken broke baseball’s consecutive record, can be ruled as being owned the organization. However, at the time the Regan made a copy of the card, he was still a part of the organization. Therefore, Phil Regan could do whatever he chose to do with copies of the original card if he did not sign any contract or other agreement that defines the ownership rights of any Baltimore Orioles property and what he could and could not redistribute that was in representation of the organization.
For the Plaintiff
In the case, Baltimore Orioles v. Regan, or properly known as Baltimore Orioles Limited v. North Shore Sports Inc., the Baltimore Orioles wants the Court and Cook County (Ill.) Circuit Court Judge Albert Green to decide that the original card, the copies of the line-up card, and related items also being sold by Regan. A key related item that Regan took from the Baltimore Orioles is the line-up card from the previous game, in which Cal Ripken tied Lou Gehrig's record of 2,130 consecutive games. The plaintiff, the Baltimore Orioles Limited believes that these items do not belong to Regan, but belonged to the team because they are items that Phil Regan used while he was within the scope of employment. The line-up cards are property of the Baltimore Orioles and Phil Regan uses these line-up cards in order to execute the duties of his employment. He does not have the right to take items from the company, make copies of the items, and then sell both the original and the copies to third parties for his own financial benefit.
Summary or Statement of the Facts:
To begin the statement of the facts, the incident when Phil Regan filled out the lineup card for the game that Cal Ripken broke baseball’s consecutive game records was on September 6, 1995. Phil Regan worked for the Baltimore Orioles as the team’s Manager. Phil Regan made five carbon copies and took one with him after the game, giving it to his daughter. Phil Regan stated that he gave it to his daughter so that she could take care of the card. Later in the year after Phil Regan left the Orioles, he arranged for the card to be auctioned off by using North Shore Sports, a telephone auction service. The collector interested in the lineup card, Mark Lewis, agreed to directly buy the card from Regan for $15,000. After purchasing the card, Mark Lewis utilized North Shore Sports Inc. and wanted to sell it to Jim Ancell for $35,650. However, at this time the Baltimore Orioles won a temporary restraining order to prevent Ancell from purchasing the card and claimed that the card was the team’s property. Hence from there, the Orioles asked Cook County (Ill.) Circuit Court Judge Albert Green to take possession of the card as well as the card used in the previous game as Cal Ripken tied Lou Gehrig’s consecutive games streak. North Shore Sports had possession of the items until the December 21 hearing.
Argument:
Initially, the line-up cards are the property of the Baltimore Orioles so they should stay within the property rights of the team. It does not justify Phil Regan’s possession of the lineup card because he uses the lineup cards everyday for work. The Baltimore Orioles organization pays for the lineup cards and since Phil Regan is an employee of the organization, he has privileges, not rights, to use the card. Phil Regan essentially stole physical property from the Orioles organization and sold it for his personal gain. Regan cannot argue lack of capacity because he was in a sober, practical mindset when he made the five copies of the lineup cards while also taking the lineup card from the previous game with the intent to sell it for profit.
In addition, the duty of the manager is to turn in the lineup cards to the umpiring crew so the umpires knows what substitutions are to be made. Therefore, it is not within the scope of employment to make copies for one’s own keepsake. His responsibility is to give the lineup cards to the umpire and not take it for personal use.
PHIL REGAN WAS AN EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. JUST LIKE ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE, ONE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE ITEMS FROM AN OFFICE OR WORKSPACE AND SELL IT FOR PERSONAL PROFIT; WHICH LEADS ME TO A CRUCIAL CONTENTION IN THIS CASE…
Just like lineup cards, other items from the MLB teams such as baseball bats and gloves are not to be sold by players or managers.
A. Precedent – On Tuesday March 12, 2002, Ruben Rivera was cut from the New York Yankees for taking a bat and glove from the New York Yankees locker room and selling it for $2,500. The locker room is supposedly a sacred place for players and managers because they spend so much time in the facilities that it is punishable to take and sell property from the team in order to make financial gain.
1. Very similar precedent set for the Baltimore Orioles Limited v. North Shore Sports Inc. The lineup cards are property of the Baltimore Orioles club. If the manager is allowed to make copies of the lineup card and sell it for personal profit, what would stop the entire team from taking property from the clubhouse and selling it for a profit.
2. Thus, taking property from the clubhouse leads to a slippery slope of theft THAT WOULD BE NEAR DIFFICULT TO END IF THE JURY LETS THIS INCIDENT SLIDE BY!
Conclusion:
In summation, the Baltimore Orioles organization has the right of possession of all the lineup cards that Phil Regan used during Cal Ripken’s quest to achieve the streak of consecutive games played. Using precedent, an employee of an MLB organization does not have the right to take property of the clubhouse and sell it for profit. It is not within the scope of employment for Phil Regan to take the lineup cards, make copies, and sell it. His responsibility is to give it to the umpiring crew. Lastly, Regan was within capacity and had intentions of taking the Baltimore Orioles’ property because the incident was clearly planned out.
Tiana Myers
For the Defense
The party in which I will represent is Phil Regan. He is a former Baltimore Orioles manager. The complaint that is being addressed is Baltimore Orioles Limited vs. Northshore Sports Incorporated. However, Phil Regan is considered to be a defendant in this case as well.
Phil Regan was the Baltimore Orioles manager until he was later released of his duties as manager. While Regan was the manager for the team, a monumental event happened in baseball. In September 1995, Cal Ripken Jr. broke the all-time record for playing in consecutive games. As stated previously, Phil Regan was the Orioles manager at the time.
The complaint of this case says the Orioles went to the court for a temporary restraining order preventing purchases from being completed. The Orioles wanted to block the sale of the carbon copies of the card that was used during the historic game when Ripken set a new record for a player playing consecutive games in baseball. The Baltimore Orioles fired Regan for “possession of stolen goods.” However, Regan did not steal the card or the carbon copies. After the game the team never asked for the cards. The cards were routinely left in the dugout for the cleanup crews to discard. The original copy of the card is currently in the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York.
During the time of the case, Judge Albert Green took possession of the card because Regan had auctioned off the copy of the card he had to a buyer, Mark Lewis for $15,000. Regan had the ability to auction this card off because he arranged the auction through a telephone auction service. The Baltimore Orioles organization argues Regan did not have the right to sale the card or any copies. This could be considered a case of ownership.
In this case the ownership of this property, the carbon copy of the card in which Ripken broke baseball’s consecutive record, can be ruled as being owned the organization. However, at the time the Regan made a copy of the card, he was still a part of the organization. Therefore, Phil Regan could do whatever he chose to do with copies of the original card if he did not sign any contract or other agreement that defines the ownership rights of any Baltimore Orioles property and what he could and could not redistribute that was in representation of the organization.
Koenig Vs North Mason School District Team:
For the Plaintiff
Musadiq Bidar
Today, when a pitcher pitches more than a 100 pitches a big red alarm goes off in the heads of all coaches. This was not the case in 2001 when high school pitcher Jason Koenig threw about 425 pitches in a span of 16 days. In his last outing on April 27th, 2001 Koenig threw 140 pitches over nine innings. Anyone who watches, plays, or coaches’ baseball knows very well about the dangers of high pitch counts—especially with young athletes.
When Jason Koenig took the mound for North Mason High School’s 14 of 18 games he did so under the rules of Washington Interscholastic Activities Association. He had the mandatory two days rest in between pitching. After his last game in which he pitched 140 pitches, Koenig was injured. He would never pitch again in his life. Even with all the mandatory precautions I believe the coaches and the school district should be held liable for Koenig’s injuries.
Koenig sued the school district for negligence but the district was found not guilty because the pitching coach did not have enough information on the dangers of pitch counts to prevent his injury. I believe it is the coaches standard of care to keep his pitcher out of harms way. It is the coach’s duty and responsibility to act in a reasonable manner and provide for the safety of others. The coach failed to do this. Koenig’s mom suggested to Jay Hultberg (Koenig’s baseball coach) many times that he needed to take her son out of the game but he refused. Of course Koenig did not want to come out of the game both because he was the best player out there and felt the need to carry his team. The act to not act by the coach resulted in the injury Jason Koenig and he should be held liable because of negligence.
Koenig sued the school district because he wanted to change the rules. He wasn’t looking for much else. I believe if he had sued the coach himself, Koenig would have won the case. It is ironic that the coach was not mentioned at all in the complaint.
For the Defense
Samuel Mernick
In the case of Koenig vs. North Mason School District, it is clear that North Mason School district cannot be held accountable. This is because of an inherent lack of knowledge on the part of the head baseball coach, Jay Hultberg. While Hultberg is responsible for the safety and responsibility of his team, Hultberg, because of the standard of care, is not liable. Hultberg was never properly trained or made aware of that risks and dangers associated with high pitch counts. Since Hultberg had never been made aware of this, there was no breach of duty between Koenig and his coaches, because the standard of care was never determined beforehand in this scenario, which would have been done by Hultberg being officially informed through some accountable outlet, the risk of high pitch counts. Since Hultberg was unaware of these risks, he was at no point intentionally putting Koenig at risk or acting irresponsibility, out of the scope of his duty. He did not violate the standard of care, therefore cannot be held accountable.
Musadiq Bidar
Today, when a pitcher pitches more than a 100 pitches a big red alarm goes off in the heads of all coaches. This was not the case in 2001 when high school pitcher Jason Koenig threw about 425 pitches in a span of 16 days. In his last outing on April 27th, 2001 Koenig threw 140 pitches over nine innings. Anyone who watches, plays, or coaches’ baseball knows very well about the dangers of high pitch counts—especially with young athletes.
When Jason Koenig took the mound for North Mason High School’s 14 of 18 games he did so under the rules of Washington Interscholastic Activities Association. He had the mandatory two days rest in between pitching. After his last game in which he pitched 140 pitches, Koenig was injured. He would never pitch again in his life. Even with all the mandatory precautions I believe the coaches and the school district should be held liable for Koenig’s injuries.
Koenig sued the school district for negligence but the district was found not guilty because the pitching coach did not have enough information on the dangers of pitch counts to prevent his injury. I believe it is the coaches standard of care to keep his pitcher out of harms way. It is the coach’s duty and responsibility to act in a reasonable manner and provide for the safety of others. The coach failed to do this. Koenig’s mom suggested to Jay Hultberg (Koenig’s baseball coach) many times that he needed to take her son out of the game but he refused. Of course Koenig did not want to come out of the game both because he was the best player out there and felt the need to carry his team. The act to not act by the coach resulted in the injury Jason Koenig and he should be held liable because of negligence.
Koenig sued the school district because he wanted to change the rules. He wasn’t looking for much else. I believe if he had sued the coach himself, Koenig would have won the case. It is ironic that the coach was not mentioned at all in the complaint.
For the Defense
Samuel Mernick
In the case of Koenig vs. North Mason School District, it is clear that North Mason School district cannot be held accountable. This is because of an inherent lack of knowledge on the part of the head baseball coach, Jay Hultberg. While Hultberg is responsible for the safety and responsibility of his team, Hultberg, because of the standard of care, is not liable. Hultberg was never properly trained or made aware of that risks and dangers associated with high pitch counts. Since Hultberg had never been made aware of this, there was no breach of duty between Koenig and his coaches, because the standard of care was never determined beforehand in this scenario, which would have been done by Hultberg being officially informed through some accountable outlet, the risk of high pitch counts. Since Hultberg was unaware of these risks, he was at no point intentionally putting Koenig at risk or acting irresponsibility, out of the scope of his duty. He did not violate the standard of care, therefore cannot be held accountable.
Friday, November 4, 2011
TSSAA v. Brentwood Academy
Team:
Megan Cunningham
Margaret Kurtz
Information on the Complaint from the Case File available:
In the original complaint filed on December 12th, 1997, Brentwood Academy, a private parochial high school member of Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (TSSAA), sued the association alleging that TSSAA’s conduct in enforcing its rule prohibiting member schools from contacting prospective student-athletes prior to their enrollment, known as the “Recruiting Rule”, violated the First and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The complaint also claimed antitrust violations under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, based on TSSAA’s allegedly anti competitive conduct in imposing sanctions upon Brentwood Academy – including barring the school from competing for a state championship for two years – for purported violations of the Recruiting Rule. The complaint alleged, among other things, that these sanctions materially hindered Brentwood Academy’s ability to compete for students and to compete in interscholastic athletics with other member schools.
The names of the litigants:
Brentwood Academy and Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association
The date the lawsuit was filed:
12/12/1997
The court in which the lawsuit was filed:
Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville), US District Court
The present status of the case: Currently closed after being Reversed in Appellate Court and Remanded in the US Supreme Court, ruling in favor of Brentwood Academy.
A concise statement of the issue or issues in dispute:
In 1997, the TSSAA investigated rumors that Brentwood Academy, a highly athletic school with many state football championships, was violating their recruiting rule and recruiting public school students for athletic purposes. While this was found untrue, they instead found that Brentwood's football coach had been recruiting 8th graders to the academy to play, which was also against the association's rules. Because of this the TSSAA fined the school $3,000 and placed them on athletic probation which prohibited them from participant in championship games for 2 years. Brentwood sued the TSSAA saying that this was against 1st and 14th amendment rights. This violated their right to due process because the validity of this case had never been tried in court. They also claimed that this violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the right to free speech because it limited the way in which the academy chose to recruit and subsequently was anti-competitive.
What the plaintiff is asking the court for:
To be able to recruit however they'd like because the TSSAA is a state association and thus must abide under the rules of the US constitution, the have probation lifted, and to have fines waived.
Megan Cunningham
Margaret Kurtz
Information on the Complaint from the Case File available:
In the original complaint filed on December 12th, 1997, Brentwood Academy, a private parochial high school member of Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (TSSAA), sued the association alleging that TSSAA’s conduct in enforcing its rule prohibiting member schools from contacting prospective student-athletes prior to their enrollment, known as the “Recruiting Rule”, violated the First and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The complaint also claimed antitrust violations under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, based on TSSAA’s allegedly anti competitive conduct in imposing sanctions upon Brentwood Academy – including barring the school from competing for a state championship for two years – for purported violations of the Recruiting Rule. The complaint alleged, among other things, that these sanctions materially hindered Brentwood Academy’s ability to compete for students and to compete in interscholastic athletics with other member schools.
The names of the litigants:
Brentwood Academy and Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association
The date the lawsuit was filed:
12/12/1997
The court in which the lawsuit was filed:
Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville), US District Court
The present status of the case: Currently closed after being Reversed in Appellate Court and Remanded in the US Supreme Court, ruling in favor of Brentwood Academy.
A concise statement of the issue or issues in dispute:
In 1997, the TSSAA investigated rumors that Brentwood Academy, a highly athletic school with many state football championships, was violating their recruiting rule and recruiting public school students for athletic purposes. While this was found untrue, they instead found that Brentwood's football coach had been recruiting 8th graders to the academy to play, which was also against the association's rules. Because of this the TSSAA fined the school $3,000 and placed them on athletic probation which prohibited them from participant in championship games for 2 years. Brentwood sued the TSSAA saying that this was against 1st and 14th amendment rights. This violated their right to due process because the validity of this case had never been tried in court. They also claimed that this violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the right to free speech because it limited the way in which the academy chose to recruit and subsequently was anti-competitive.
What the plaintiff is asking the court for:
To be able to recruit however they'd like because the TSSAA is a state association and thus must abide under the rules of the US constitution, the have probation lifted, and to have fines waived.
Family of Bryan Stow v. Dodgers, Frank McCourt
Team:
Alexander Samaras
Gerson Molina
The names of the litigants---Bryan Michael Stow, Elizabeth Ann Stow and David Edward Stow;
Tyler Stow and Tabitha Stow, minors, through their guardians Ad Litem and Jacqueline Kain.
Defendants are LA Dodgers, Frank McCourt et al (many under the leadership of both the
Dodgers and Frank McCourt).
The date the lawsuit was filed: May 24th, 2011
The court in which the lawsuit was filed: Superior Court of the State of California—County of
Los Angeles, Central District.
Case status and issues at hand:
A Giants fan and a couple of his friends were at the LA Dodgers v. San Francisco Giants game at
Dodger Stadium on March 31st, 2011. The game was the home-opener for the Dodgers. During,
and prior to the game, fans of the LA Dodgers “yelled” and “taunted” and objects, including
food was thrown at Stow and his friends, who were wearing the team colors of the Giants. The
verbal abuse continued when the game was finished and when Stow and his “companions” were
leaving the stadium. After exiting the stadium, he and his companions were headed towards the
taxi-pickup area, when Dodger fans attacked him. He was hit on the head numerous times. He
eventually fell on the ground and hit his head. His head was then kicked a few times while on the
floor. He lost consciousness. It took 10-15 minutes for “Dodger Defendant personnel” to
respond to the scene. Stow was taken to San Francisco General Hospital and was put in a
medically induced coma. Since then, parts of his skull have been removed to take pressure away
from his brain. He has recently been moved to another facility in San Francisco, where he is
undergoing extensive rehabilitation, including occupational, speech and physical therapy, for the
brain damage he received from the beatings. The process is very slow, yet he has recently
accomplished a major feat, by writing his name (support4bryanstow.com). The suspects are not
yet known; however the LAPD have arrested one suspect, Giovanni Ramirez, who they believe
was involved in the assault. The plaintiffs are suing the defendants, including Frank McCourt,
the owner of the Dodgers, who owns the parking lot and Dodger Stadium, on the counts
of “negligence, premising liability, negligent hiring, retention, supervision, negligent infliction
of emotional distress, loss of consortium, assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.” The plaintiffs argue that the defendants inadequately provided a
safe environment; as a result of security funding that had been cut, both in the stadium and in the
parking lot. Furthermore, they believe that the defendants had “prior notice” that “gang
members” and other criminals congregate at LA Dodger games to “meet, plan and carryout out
criminal activity”, which they were made aware by local authorities. They also believe that they
were aware of other similar incidents that have occurred, after 2004. Moreover, their advertising
of alcohol such as the “half off beer,” which has, after the incident, ceased to continue, played a
major role in the incident. The lack of lighting in the parking lot made the parking lot more
susceptible for crime, which the defendants were well aware of. The lack of security on duty
failed to get rid of drunken fans and control the ongoing abuse that lead to the
incident. The “actions and/or omissions constituted malice, oppression, and or/or willful and
conscious disregard and safety of PLAINTIFFS pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
3294 entitling PLAINTIFFS to punitive damages.” The defendants breached their standard of
care and their duty owed to Stow to protect and make sure such an incident would not occur. The
workers of the LA Dodgers saw the abuse that Stow and his friends faced; yet they did not act
appropriately. Security should have helped Stow and his friends safely leave the stadium and
parking lot. Lastly, no warning was given to Stow of such dangers of coming to the game. The
litigants/plaintiffs are asking the court to find the defendants liable for the situation and they seek
general, special, and punitive damages, as well as damages that are used/will be used for the
lawsuit, and any money that was donated to the “Bryan Stow fund,” including repaying those
who gave to the fund. Stow has two kids who are still minors and who are dependent on him.
***Quotations are from the complaint. Other information is from the complaint as well.
Alexander Samaras
Gerson Molina
The names of the litigants---Bryan Michael Stow, Elizabeth Ann Stow and David Edward Stow;
Tyler Stow and Tabitha Stow, minors, through their guardians Ad Litem and Jacqueline Kain.
Defendants are LA Dodgers, Frank McCourt et al (many under the leadership of both the
Dodgers and Frank McCourt).
The date the lawsuit was filed: May 24th, 2011
The court in which the lawsuit was filed: Superior Court of the State of California—County of
Los Angeles, Central District.
Case status and issues at hand:
A Giants fan and a couple of his friends were at the LA Dodgers v. San Francisco Giants game at
Dodger Stadium on March 31st, 2011. The game was the home-opener for the Dodgers. During,
and prior to the game, fans of the LA Dodgers “yelled” and “taunted” and objects, including
food was thrown at Stow and his friends, who were wearing the team colors of the Giants. The
verbal abuse continued when the game was finished and when Stow and his “companions” were
leaving the stadium. After exiting the stadium, he and his companions were headed towards the
taxi-pickup area, when Dodger fans attacked him. He was hit on the head numerous times. He
eventually fell on the ground and hit his head. His head was then kicked a few times while on the
floor. He lost consciousness. It took 10-15 minutes for “Dodger Defendant personnel” to
respond to the scene. Stow was taken to San Francisco General Hospital and was put in a
medically induced coma. Since then, parts of his skull have been removed to take pressure away
from his brain. He has recently been moved to another facility in San Francisco, where he is
undergoing extensive rehabilitation, including occupational, speech and physical therapy, for the
brain damage he received from the beatings. The process is very slow, yet he has recently
accomplished a major feat, by writing his name (support4bryanstow.com). The suspects are not
yet known; however the LAPD have arrested one suspect, Giovanni Ramirez, who they believe
was involved in the assault. The plaintiffs are suing the defendants, including Frank McCourt,
the owner of the Dodgers, who owns the parking lot and Dodger Stadium, on the counts
of “negligence, premising liability, negligent hiring, retention, supervision, negligent infliction
of emotional distress, loss of consortium, assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.” The plaintiffs argue that the defendants inadequately provided a
safe environment; as a result of security funding that had been cut, both in the stadium and in the
parking lot. Furthermore, they believe that the defendants had “prior notice” that “gang
members” and other criminals congregate at LA Dodger games to “meet, plan and carryout out
criminal activity”, which they were made aware by local authorities. They also believe that they
were aware of other similar incidents that have occurred, after 2004. Moreover, their advertising
of alcohol such as the “half off beer,” which has, after the incident, ceased to continue, played a
major role in the incident. The lack of lighting in the parking lot made the parking lot more
susceptible for crime, which the defendants were well aware of. The lack of security on duty
failed to get rid of drunken fans and control the ongoing abuse that lead to the
incident. The “actions and/or omissions constituted malice, oppression, and or/or willful and
conscious disregard and safety of PLAINTIFFS pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
3294 entitling PLAINTIFFS to punitive damages.” The defendants breached their standard of
care and their duty owed to Stow to protect and make sure such an incident would not occur. The
workers of the LA Dodgers saw the abuse that Stow and his friends faced; yet they did not act
appropriately. Security should have helped Stow and his friends safely leave the stadium and
parking lot. Lastly, no warning was given to Stow of such dangers of coming to the game. The
litigants/plaintiffs are asking the court to find the defendants liable for the situation and they seek
general, special, and punitive damages, as well as damages that are used/will be used for the
lawsuit, and any money that was donated to the “Bryan Stow fund,” including repaying those
who gave to the fund. Stow has two kids who are still minors and who are dependent on him.
***Quotations are from the complaint. Other information is from the complaint as well.
John Daly v. Jacksonville Times Union
Team:
Alex Sohali
Chris Seckman
Litigants
Plaintiff- John P. Daly, an individual
Defendants- MORRIS PUBLISHING GROUP, LLC a foreign limited liability company, MORRIS PUBLISHING GROUP, LLC d/b/a THE FLORIDA TIMES-UNION; MIKE FREEMAN, an individual; and JACKSONVILLE.COM an unincorporated association or other entity
Date/Court/ Status
The suit was filed July 26th, 2005 in Duval County Circuit Court, Florida. The civil lawsuit was done and ordered in favor of the defendants on March 17th, 2009. The renewed motion for summary final judgment filed by the defendants was granted to each of the defendants against the plaintiff. The plaintiff recovered no damages and the defendants went hence without day. Also, the Court reserved jurisdiction to award costs and attorneys fees to the defendant.
Summary
The plaintiff, John P. Daly, a widely recognized public figure and professional golfer on the PGA tour sued the defendants for defamation (Counts 1-6), invasion of privacy-false light (Count 7), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count 8), and negligent hiring and supervision (Count 9) and as a result of these grievances the plaintiff seeks monetary compensation in an unspecified amount in excess of $15,000. The acts in question occurred in a March 25th, 2005 opinion sports column written by sports-writer Mike Freeman. The article entitled “Daly, Duval Star in Golfs Surreal Life” appeared in the print edition of The Florida Times-Union and on its website found under the domain name jacksonville.com. In the column, Freeman expresses opinions about the long-standing, public controversy surrounding Daly's career and personal life. Daly alleged that some of Freeman’s statements concerning the former British Open champion were false in nature and were portrayed as fact. In order for Daly to successfully win his six counts of defamation (1&4: Domestic Violence, 3&6: Shawn Kemp of Golf, 2&5: Thug Life) he had to prove that that statements Freeman made were false, were damaging to Daly, and were not matters of opinion. Under the First Amendment, public figures in defamation lawsuits are required to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence and because actual malice is subjective, Daly had to prove that Freeman published the alleged defamatory statement with the knowledge that it was false or while entertaining serious doubts as to its truthfulness. There was no evidence to suggest that any of the factual statements used in Freeman’s article were false much less that the Defendants were subjectively aware of their falsity at the time of publication. In counts 7 through 9, Daly asserted claims for Invasion of Privacy-False Light, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent Hiring and Supervision respectively. In count 7, Privacy-False Light, summary final judgment was determined because in Florida no such cause of action exists. As for the remaining two counts filed by Daly, Count 8 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress & Count 9 Negligent Hiring and Supervision, Florida allows the single publication/single action rule which prohibits a party from basing additional torts on the same essential facts as a failed defamation claim. Because Daly had alleged nine causes of action on the same group of facts Counts 7 through 9 were barred by the single publication/single action rule and summary final judgment was entered.
Alex Sohali
Chris Seckman
Litigants
Plaintiff- John P. Daly, an individual
Defendants- MORRIS PUBLISHING GROUP, LLC a foreign limited liability company, MORRIS PUBLISHING GROUP, LLC d/b/a THE FLORIDA TIMES-UNION; MIKE FREEMAN, an individual; and JACKSONVILLE.COM an unincorporated association or other entity
Date/Court/ Status
The suit was filed July 26th, 2005 in Duval County Circuit Court, Florida. The civil lawsuit was done and ordered in favor of the defendants on March 17th, 2009. The renewed motion for summary final judgment filed by the defendants was granted to each of the defendants against the plaintiff. The plaintiff recovered no damages and the defendants went hence without day. Also, the Court reserved jurisdiction to award costs and attorneys fees to the defendant.
Summary
The plaintiff, John P. Daly, a widely recognized public figure and professional golfer on the PGA tour sued the defendants for defamation (Counts 1-6), invasion of privacy-false light (Count 7), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count 8), and negligent hiring and supervision (Count 9) and as a result of these grievances the plaintiff seeks monetary compensation in an unspecified amount in excess of $15,000. The acts in question occurred in a March 25th, 2005 opinion sports column written by sports-writer Mike Freeman. The article entitled “Daly, Duval Star in Golfs Surreal Life” appeared in the print edition of The Florida Times-Union and on its website found under the domain name jacksonville.com. In the column, Freeman expresses opinions about the long-standing, public controversy surrounding Daly's career and personal life. Daly alleged that some of Freeman’s statements concerning the former British Open champion were false in nature and were portrayed as fact. In order for Daly to successfully win his six counts of defamation (1&4: Domestic Violence, 3&6: Shawn Kemp of Golf, 2&5: Thug Life) he had to prove that that statements Freeman made were false, were damaging to Daly, and were not matters of opinion. Under the First Amendment, public figures in defamation lawsuits are required to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence and because actual malice is subjective, Daly had to prove that Freeman published the alleged defamatory statement with the knowledge that it was false or while entertaining serious doubts as to its truthfulness. There was no evidence to suggest that any of the factual statements used in Freeman’s article were false much less that the Defendants were subjectively aware of their falsity at the time of publication. In counts 7 through 9, Daly asserted claims for Invasion of Privacy-False Light, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent Hiring and Supervision respectively. In count 7, Privacy-False Light, summary final judgment was determined because in Florida no such cause of action exists. As for the remaining two counts filed by Daly, Count 8 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress & Count 9 Negligent Hiring and Supervision, Florida allows the single publication/single action rule which prohibits a party from basing additional torts on the same essential facts as a failed defamation claim. Because Daly had alleged nine causes of action on the same group of facts Counts 7 through 9 were barred by the single publication/single action rule and summary final judgment was entered.
Pittsburgh Pirates v. Parker
TEAM:
Alex Johnson
Brian Lerner
Names of the litigants:
Pittsburgh Pirates (Plaintiff)
Dave Parker (Defendant)
Date of the lawsuit filed:
April 21,1986
Court in which the lawsuit was filed:
U.S. District Judge Glenn E Mencer
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Present status of the case:
The Pittsburgh Pirates and Dave Parker settled out of court on December 13th,
1988 for his drug use and contract terms. His deferred payments were significantly
reduced according to Pittsburgh Pirates president Carl Barger, but the specific
amount was never disclosed.
Statement of the issues in dispute:
Dave Parker was sued for breach on contract on the terms that he did not reveal
to the Pirates that he used illegal drugs (cocaine) before signing his contract. The
Pirates argued that his use of cocaine failed to keep him in “good physical condition”
which is a direct breach of his contract. Parker was no longer on the Pittsburgh
Pirates at the time but the team still pays deferred income to him.
What the plaintiff is asking the court for:
Dave Parker was the first million dollar contract in the MLB after signing a $7.5
Million dollar contract that guaranteed him an initial payment of $944,445 on Jan.
10, 1988 and monthly payments of nearly $20,000 until June, 2007. The Pirates are
suing to cancel out the contract and thus saving the team $5.3 million in deferred
payments to Parker.
Alex Johnson
Brian Lerner
Names of the litigants:
Pittsburgh Pirates (Plaintiff)
Dave Parker (Defendant)
Date of the lawsuit filed:
April 21,1986
Court in which the lawsuit was filed:
U.S. District Judge Glenn E Mencer
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Present status of the case:
The Pittsburgh Pirates and Dave Parker settled out of court on December 13th,
1988 for his drug use and contract terms. His deferred payments were significantly
reduced according to Pittsburgh Pirates president Carl Barger, but the specific
amount was never disclosed.
Statement of the issues in dispute:
Dave Parker was sued for breach on contract on the terms that he did not reveal
to the Pirates that he used illegal drugs (cocaine) before signing his contract. The
Pirates argued that his use of cocaine failed to keep him in “good physical condition”
which is a direct breach of his contract. Parker was no longer on the Pittsburgh
Pirates at the time but the team still pays deferred income to him.
What the plaintiff is asking the court for:
Dave Parker was the first million dollar contract in the MLB after signing a $7.5
Million dollar contract that guaranteed him an initial payment of $944,445 on Jan.
10, 1988 and monthly payments of nearly $20,000 until June, 2007. The Pirates are
suing to cancel out the contract and thus saving the team $5.3 million in deferred
payments to Parker.
Dan Snyder v. Atalaya Capital Management, Creative Loafing Inc and Washington City Paper
Team:
Ali Toumadj
Spencer Wolf
On February 2, 2011, Dan Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins, filed
a lawsuit against the Washington City Paper. More specifically, the lawsuit was filed
against the company who owned and ran the paper, Atalaya Capital Management LP,
Creative Loafing, Inc. The lawsuit was filed because Dan Snyder was unhappy about
an article published by Dave McKenna back on November 19, 2010. The article was
titled, “The Cranky Redskins Fan’s Guide to Dan Snyder.” As most people can imagine
from the title, the article did not portray Snyder in a very positive manner. What irritated
Snyder more so than anything else was the fact that the article included false material and
information about him. When the lawsuit was originally filed in February, the paper and
the company were the only litigants, the defendants in a civil case. However, on April
26, 2011, when the lawsuit’s venue shifted from New York to Washington D.C., Dave
McKenna was added as a litigant.
The lawsuit was filed in the New York Supreme Court for New York County.
When the lawsuit shifted in April 26, 2011, Snyder filed a second complaint in the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia. As for the present status of the case, Dan
Snyder dropped his lawsuit against Dave McKenna and the Washington City Paper on
September 10, 2011. He dropped the lawsuit on the night before the Redskins’ season
opener at Fed Ex Field. Many people believe the two incidents were related and that
Snyder did not want any distractions going into the season.
What Mr. Snyder was asking for in his case was some sort of damages. He
claimed that he suffered “not less than one million dollars” including damages to his
reputation, shame, standing in the community, etc. Snyder asked for exemplary or
punitive damages to punish or set an example of the defendants. As mentioned earlier,
the main issue in the case was that Snyder was unhappy about the false material in the
article. Furthermore, he believed that the article used false information to purposely shed
him in a very bad light.
Ali Toumadj
Spencer Wolf
On February 2, 2011, Dan Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins, filed
a lawsuit against the Washington City Paper. More specifically, the lawsuit was filed
against the company who owned and ran the paper, Atalaya Capital Management LP,
Creative Loafing, Inc. The lawsuit was filed because Dan Snyder was unhappy about
an article published by Dave McKenna back on November 19, 2010. The article was
titled, “The Cranky Redskins Fan’s Guide to Dan Snyder.” As most people can imagine
from the title, the article did not portray Snyder in a very positive manner. What irritated
Snyder more so than anything else was the fact that the article included false material and
information about him. When the lawsuit was originally filed in February, the paper and
the company were the only litigants, the defendants in a civil case. However, on April
26, 2011, when the lawsuit’s venue shifted from New York to Washington D.C., Dave
McKenna was added as a litigant.
The lawsuit was filed in the New York Supreme Court for New York County.
When the lawsuit shifted in April 26, 2011, Snyder filed a second complaint in the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia. As for the present status of the case, Dan
Snyder dropped his lawsuit against Dave McKenna and the Washington City Paper on
September 10, 2011. He dropped the lawsuit on the night before the Redskins’ season
opener at Fed Ex Field. Many people believe the two incidents were related and that
Snyder did not want any distractions going into the season.
What Mr. Snyder was asking for in his case was some sort of damages. He
claimed that he suffered “not less than one million dollars” including damages to his
reputation, shame, standing in the community, etc. Snyder asked for exemplary or
punitive damages to punish or set an example of the defendants. As mentioned earlier,
the main issue in the case was that Snyder was unhappy about the false material in the
article. Furthermore, he believed that the article used false information to purposely shed
him in a very bad light.
NCAA v. University of North Dakota
Team:
Caroline Hendrick
Tara Mullins
In the noteworthy case of NCAA v. University of North Dakota, the plaintiff
was the State of North Dakota, which was represented by and through the State
Board of Higher Education and also through the University of North Dakota. The
defendant of the case was the NCAA. The case was filed in October 2006 in the
Northeast Central Judicial District Court. The case continued and was brought to the
court’s attention for almost five years, but the current status of the case is
permanently settled.
The main concern that the plaintiff was asking for was for the permission of
the court to retain its “Fighting Sioux” nickname and logo, and to be able to enforce
the University of North Dakota contractual and legal rights as a member of the
NCAA. Since the Sioux tribes are prevalent in North Dakota, the name was seen as
offensive, violent, and unrepresentative of their tribe and culture.
There were three major causes of action in NCAA v. University of North
Dakota. The first major cause was a breach of contract. The NCAA Executive
Committee does not have the direct authority to adopt legislation “by circumventing
the clearly defined legislative process,” “imposing restrictions on site selection,”
or “denying member institutions earned home team advantage in championship
events,” as stated in the contract. Due to this apparent breach of contract, University
of North Dakota was awarded substantial monetary damages.
The second major cause of action was due to the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing. Involving this specific cause of action, NCAA failed to follow
the terms of the contract and also failed to delineate and apply an appropriate and
consistent standard to all of its associated members under the application of the
policy. NCAA denied the right to announce a clear standard or how exactly it would
be applied in determining whether the mascot, nickname, and imagery of the Native
American “Fighting Sioux,” was “hostile or abusive” according to this policy.
The last cause of action was an unlawful restraint on trade. The be
considered a relevant market in the NCAA involves intercollegiate athletics and all
of it’s submarkets, participating in all championship games and events, hosting and
placing bids to host said events, and continuing the associated marketing and
merchandising, all which include the state of North Dakota. Because of this restraint
on trade, North Dakota was put in a competitive disadvantage for the NCAA
championship competitions. This resulted in a commercial boycott against the
University of North Dakota since they were ineligible to bid to host or host any
championship events, thus denying University of North Dakota from receiving any
commercial benefits from hosting said events and all NCAA members were urged to
put a pause on regular season games with University of North Dakota. This in turn
negatively impacted multiple consumer groups associated with the University of
North Dakota, including but not limited to, member institutions, athletes, fans, and
alumni.
Caroline Hendrick
Tara Mullins
In the noteworthy case of NCAA v. University of North Dakota, the plaintiff
was the State of North Dakota, which was represented by and through the State
Board of Higher Education and also through the University of North Dakota. The
defendant of the case was the NCAA. The case was filed in October 2006 in the
Northeast Central Judicial District Court. The case continued and was brought to the
court’s attention for almost five years, but the current status of the case is
permanently settled.
The main concern that the plaintiff was asking for was for the permission of
the court to retain its “Fighting Sioux” nickname and logo, and to be able to enforce
the University of North Dakota contractual and legal rights as a member of the
NCAA. Since the Sioux tribes are prevalent in North Dakota, the name was seen as
offensive, violent, and unrepresentative of their tribe and culture.
There were three major causes of action in NCAA v. University of North
Dakota. The first major cause was a breach of contract. The NCAA Executive
Committee does not have the direct authority to adopt legislation “by circumventing
the clearly defined legislative process,” “imposing restrictions on site selection,”
or “denying member institutions earned home team advantage in championship
events,” as stated in the contract. Due to this apparent breach of contract, University
of North Dakota was awarded substantial monetary damages.
The second major cause of action was due to the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing. Involving this specific cause of action, NCAA failed to follow
the terms of the contract and also failed to delineate and apply an appropriate and
consistent standard to all of its associated members under the application of the
policy. NCAA denied the right to announce a clear standard or how exactly it would
be applied in determining whether the mascot, nickname, and imagery of the Native
American “Fighting Sioux,” was “hostile or abusive” according to this policy.
The last cause of action was an unlawful restraint on trade. The be
considered a relevant market in the NCAA involves intercollegiate athletics and all
of it’s submarkets, participating in all championship games and events, hosting and
placing bids to host said events, and continuing the associated marketing and
merchandising, all which include the state of North Dakota. Because of this restraint
on trade, North Dakota was put in a competitive disadvantage for the NCAA
championship competitions. This resulted in a commercial boycott against the
University of North Dakota since they were ineligible to bid to host or host any
championship events, thus denying University of North Dakota from receiving any
commercial benefits from hosting said events and all NCAA members were urged to
put a pause on regular season games with University of North Dakota. This in turn
negatively impacted multiple consumer groups associated with the University of
North Dakota, including but not limited to, member institutions, athletes, fans, and
alumni.
Good v. Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club
Team:
Daniel Meighan
Eric Katz
Name of litigants: Plaintiff – Alexander Good; Defense: American Golf Corporation
of California, Inc. d/b/a Pumpkin Ridge Gold Club
Date lawsuit filed: Dated January 6th, 2011; filed January 14, 2011
Court in which lawsuit filed: Circuit Court for Multnoah County; Multnoah, OR
Present Status of the Case: The case is currently in the pre-trial phase and the two
sides are conducting depositions.
Concise statement of issues in dispute: Due to rain, an overheard awning was set
up on the course’s practice range. Good had hit a ball that ricocheted off a pole of the
awning and hit him in the face. Good claims that the course was negligent in setting
up the awning and obstruction near the range. Furthermore, they assert that the
awning pole was the cause of Good’s injury and Pumpkin Ridge acted negligently
by knowing of the condition and failing to exercise reasonable care to alert of the
danger
What plaintiff is asking court for: As a result of out-of-pocket medical expenses,
future medical treatment costs and future earnings capacity impairment, the
plaintiff seeks an award not to exceed $3,000,000 in non-economic damages, a
judgment of reward for out-of-pocket, current and future medical expenses as
well as recovery for future earnings impairment and any costs and disbursements
incurred along with statutory interest with respect to the awarded sums.
Daniel Meighan
Eric Katz
Name of litigants: Plaintiff – Alexander Good; Defense: American Golf Corporation
of California, Inc. d/b/a Pumpkin Ridge Gold Club
Date lawsuit filed: Dated January 6th, 2011; filed January 14, 2011
Court in which lawsuit filed: Circuit Court for Multnoah County; Multnoah, OR
Present Status of the Case: The case is currently in the pre-trial phase and the two
sides are conducting depositions.
Concise statement of issues in dispute: Due to rain, an overheard awning was set
up on the course’s practice range. Good had hit a ball that ricocheted off a pole of the
awning and hit him in the face. Good claims that the course was negligent in setting
up the awning and obstruction near the range. Furthermore, they assert that the
awning pole was the cause of Good’s injury and Pumpkin Ridge acted negligently
by knowing of the condition and failing to exercise reasonable care to alert of the
danger
What plaintiff is asking court for: As a result of out-of-pocket medical expenses,
future medical treatment costs and future earnings capacity impairment, the
plaintiff seeks an award not to exceed $3,000,000 in non-economic damages, a
judgment of reward for out-of-pocket, current and future medical expenses as
well as recovery for future earnings impairment and any costs and disbursements
incurred along with statutory interest with respect to the awarded sums.
Baltimore Orioles Limited v. Northshore Sports Inc.
Team:
Bramjot Uberoi
Tiana Myers
The case we have been assigned is a case between the Baltimore Orioles and Phil Regan,
the Orioles former manager. The correct citation is Baltimore Orioles Limited v. North Shore
Sports Inc. [Note that Regan worked with North Shore to auction the card. Regan is also named
as a party in the suit.] The litigants involved in this particular lawsuit include the Baltimore
Orioles Limited as the plaintiff and North Shore Sports Incorporated as the defendants. This
lawsuit was filed on December 8, 1998 in the Circuit Court in Cook County, which is located in
Chicago, Illinois.
There are important elements in this case. After Phil Regan left the Orioles after the
1995 season, he arranged for a carbon copy of a game card to be auctioned. This carbon
copy card was significant because this was the game, in which, Cal Ripken broke baseball’s
consecutive game record. However, the Baltimore Orioles went to court and won a temporary
restraining order preventing the purchase of the carbon copy from being completed since the
organization claimed the card was still rightfully theirs. The Baltimore Orioles elements in this
case include eliminating North Shore Sports from selling the carbon copy of the card because
by the definition of property law, the carbon copy still belongs to the Baltimore Orioles and not
Phil Regan or North Shore Sports.
The status of the Baltimore Orioles Limited v. North Shore Sports Inc, which includes Phil
Regan, case has been voluntary dismissed from by an out-of-court agreement. The out-of court
settlement has been reached between the Baltimore Orioles Limited v. North Shore Sports
Inc that will allow Phil Regan to sell the line-up card that he made of copy of in hopes to make
money from the day Cal Ripkin broke Lou Gehrig’s consecutive start streak. Both sides did not
disclose the details of the settlement but it does allow Phil Regan to sell the line-up card to a
Virginia man that paid more than $40,000. In addition to that, Regan was able to sell the line-up
card the night before, when Cal Ripkin tied Lou Gehrig’s record. The main issue in this dispute
is whether the line-up card original and copies are the property of the Baltimore Orioles,
which would not allow Phil Regan to sell the tickets through the services of the telephone
auction company North Shore Sports Inc. If the Baltimore Orioles did have sole custody of the
property, Phil Regan would not be able to sell the card to an auctioneer or a third party; this
all relates to what the plaintiff, Baltimore Orioles Limited, wants from the case. The Baltimore
Orioles Limited want to prevent North Shore Sports Inc and Phil Regan from having the right
to property of the line-up cards that Regan made while he was under the employment of the
Orioles. The Orioles do not want to allow Regan to make money off of an act that he did while
he was at work, but was not in the scope of employment; hence making a profit from the work
of the Baltimore Orioles. Cal Ripken worked under the Baltimore Orioles and not Phil Regan, so
the Orioles want possession of the line-up cards.
Bramjot Uberoi
Tiana Myers
The case we have been assigned is a case between the Baltimore Orioles and Phil Regan,
the Orioles former manager. The correct citation is Baltimore Orioles Limited v. North Shore
Sports Inc. [Note that Regan worked with North Shore to auction the card. Regan is also named
as a party in the suit.] The litigants involved in this particular lawsuit include the Baltimore
Orioles Limited as the plaintiff and North Shore Sports Incorporated as the defendants. This
lawsuit was filed on December 8, 1998 in the Circuit Court in Cook County, which is located in
Chicago, Illinois.
There are important elements in this case. After Phil Regan left the Orioles after the
1995 season, he arranged for a carbon copy of a game card to be auctioned. This carbon
copy card was significant because this was the game, in which, Cal Ripken broke baseball’s
consecutive game record. However, the Baltimore Orioles went to court and won a temporary
restraining order preventing the purchase of the carbon copy from being completed since the
organization claimed the card was still rightfully theirs. The Baltimore Orioles elements in this
case include eliminating North Shore Sports from selling the carbon copy of the card because
by the definition of property law, the carbon copy still belongs to the Baltimore Orioles and not
Phil Regan or North Shore Sports.
The status of the Baltimore Orioles Limited v. North Shore Sports Inc, which includes Phil
Regan, case has been voluntary dismissed from by an out-of-court agreement. The out-of court
settlement has been reached between the Baltimore Orioles Limited v. North Shore Sports
Inc that will allow Phil Regan to sell the line-up card that he made of copy of in hopes to make
money from the day Cal Ripkin broke Lou Gehrig’s consecutive start streak. Both sides did not
disclose the details of the settlement but it does allow Phil Regan to sell the line-up card to a
Virginia man that paid more than $40,000. In addition to that, Regan was able to sell the line-up
card the night before, when Cal Ripkin tied Lou Gehrig’s record. The main issue in this dispute
is whether the line-up card original and copies are the property of the Baltimore Orioles,
which would not allow Phil Regan to sell the tickets through the services of the telephone
auction company North Shore Sports Inc. If the Baltimore Orioles did have sole custody of the
property, Phil Regan would not be able to sell the card to an auctioneer or a third party; this
all relates to what the plaintiff, Baltimore Orioles Limited, wants from the case. The Baltimore
Orioles Limited want to prevent North Shore Sports Inc and Phil Regan from having the right
to property of the line-up cards that Regan made while he was under the employment of the
Orioles. The Orioles do not want to allow Regan to make money off of an act that he did while
he was at work, but was not in the scope of employment; hence making a profit from the work
of the Baltimore Orioles. Cal Ripken worked under the Baltimore Orioles and not Phil Regan, so
the Orioles want possession of the line-up cards.
Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc.
Team:
Jean Lopez, Adam Sprachman & Caroline Walsh
The litigants in said trial are as follows:
• Casey Martin (plaintiff)
• PGA Tour, Inc. (defendant)
The date that the lawsuit was filed:
• November 26, 1997
The court in which it was filed:
• US District Court in Eugene, Oregon
The present status of the Case:
• February 11,1998 US Magistrate Thomas Coffin rules in favor of
Martin
• July 5, 2000 PGA Tour appeals the decision to the US Supreme Court
• September 26, 2000 Supreme Court agrees to hear PGA tour appeal
• January 17, 2001 Supreme court hears oral arguments
• May 29, 2001 Supreme court rules martin has legal right to ride in a
cart between shots at PGA Tour events
Casey Martin suffers from Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber (KTW) Syndrome, a
congenital, degenerative circulatory disorder that affects his right leg and therefore
causes him pain in the leg and for this reason he is unable to walk for long periods
of time. One way a player can qualify for the PGA Tour is by participating in the
Nike Tour and winning three of those tournaments in one year or by being in the top
fifteen money-winners in the Nike Tour. In 1997, Martin was looking to qualify for
the PGA tour, and in order to do so, a player must enter a competition known as the
qualifying school and be one of the top finishers.
The qualifying school consists of three stages; in which the first two stages
players are permitted to use golf carts but they are required to walk the course
between shots on the third stage. Casey Martin was able to qualify for the third
stage of the 1997 qualifying school. On the third hole he requested to use a golf cart
due to his disability in his right leg. However, PGA denied him of his request, and
Martin sued for his right to ride in the golf cart. He filed suit to allow him to use a
cart during the qualifying tournament, Nike Tour and the PGA Tour (if he qualified)
and on the same day for a preliminary injunction that would allow him to continue
playing at the qualifying tournament with a cart.
Jean Lopez, Adam Sprachman & Caroline Walsh
The litigants in said trial are as follows:
• Casey Martin (plaintiff)
• PGA Tour, Inc. (defendant)
The date that the lawsuit was filed:
• November 26, 1997
The court in which it was filed:
• US District Court in Eugene, Oregon
The present status of the Case:
• February 11,1998 US Magistrate Thomas Coffin rules in favor of
Martin
• July 5, 2000 PGA Tour appeals the decision to the US Supreme Court
• September 26, 2000 Supreme Court agrees to hear PGA tour appeal
• January 17, 2001 Supreme court hears oral arguments
• May 29, 2001 Supreme court rules martin has legal right to ride in a
cart between shots at PGA Tour events
Casey Martin suffers from Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber (KTW) Syndrome, a
congenital, degenerative circulatory disorder that affects his right leg and therefore
causes him pain in the leg and for this reason he is unable to walk for long periods
of time. One way a player can qualify for the PGA Tour is by participating in the
Nike Tour and winning three of those tournaments in one year or by being in the top
fifteen money-winners in the Nike Tour. In 1997, Martin was looking to qualify for
the PGA tour, and in order to do so, a player must enter a competition known as the
qualifying school and be one of the top finishers.
The qualifying school consists of three stages; in which the first two stages
players are permitted to use golf carts but they are required to walk the course
between shots on the third stage. Casey Martin was able to qualify for the third
stage of the 1997 qualifying school. On the third hole he requested to use a golf cart
due to his disability in his right leg. However, PGA denied him of his request, and
Martin sued for his right to ride in the golf cart. He filed suit to allow him to use a
cart during the qualifying tournament, Nike Tour and the PGA Tour (if he qualified)
and on the same day for a preliminary injunction that would allow him to continue
playing at the qualifying tournament with a cart.
Koenig Vs North Mason School District
Team:
Musadiq Bidar
Samuel Mernick
Jason Koenig was a hotshot high school pitcher from North Mason High School in
Washington. On April 27th 2001, Koenig pitched the last game of his career. In a span of
16 days during his junior year, Koenig threw 425 pitches including 140 over nine innings
in his last outing. The next day he wasn’t able to put on his own clothes. Jason Koenig
would never pitch again. Of course as a 17-year-old Koenig would not want to come out
of any of the games pitched. He was the star on a good high school baseball team. His
coaches took little caution to prevent his injury. Three years to day later on April 27th
2004, Koenig filed suit against the North Mason School District over negligence charges.
The two litigants in this case are the defendant, North Mason School District and the
plaintiff, Jason Koenig. The suit was filed in April of 2004. However, the contents of
the case refer to incidents that take place three years prior while Jason Koenig was
pitching for the North Mason School district. These core incidents in regards to this cause
occurred between the dates of April 11th to April 27th, 2001 while Jason Koenig was a
high school junior pitching for the North Mason High school varsity baseball.
This case was filed in the Superior Court of Mason County, Washington. In this suit,
Jason Koenig is suing the school district for not adequately protecting his health and
his arm as a student athlete while under the supervision of their institution. Jason
Koenig claimed negligence in the districts management of his athletic capabilities by
not following the WIAA, Washing Interscholastic Activities Association, mandated
limit on how often a pitcher is allowed to pitch. Furthermore that the plaintiff was used
excessively not only in the amount of games played, but also in the amount of pitches
thrown per game. The plaintiff believes that district should have known that he was being
overused and put in danger. It is note worthy that Koenig sued the district and not Jay
Hultberg, Koenig’s coach at the time.
Koenig was asking the court to change the Washington Interscholastic Activities
Association rules so this type of injury would be avoided in the future. All of his pitching
was within the rules of Washington Interscholastic Activities Association. The rules state
that a pitcher must rest at least two days after pitching for three innings. Koenig was
hoping for a type of rule that would require pitch counts so coaches would be forced to
take players out of games, further preventing debilitating varsity high school baseball
injuries.
Four years after the case was filed, The Jury at the Superior Court of Mason County
in Washington ruled that the school distract wasn’t negligent. The Lead juror Mary
Newhall was cited in a Seattle Times article commenting that the Jury believed Jay
Hultberg—Koenig’s pitching coach in high school—did not have enough information on
the risk of high pitch counts at the time Koenig was injured. It is important to mention
that Hulberg was not mentioned in the lawsuit at all. Koenig was suing the school
distract, not his coaches. Koenig is now a professional photographer and his shoulder still
bothers him from time to time.
Musadiq Bidar
Samuel Mernick
Jason Koenig was a hotshot high school pitcher from North Mason High School in
Washington. On April 27th 2001, Koenig pitched the last game of his career. In a span of
16 days during his junior year, Koenig threw 425 pitches including 140 over nine innings
in his last outing. The next day he wasn’t able to put on his own clothes. Jason Koenig
would never pitch again. Of course as a 17-year-old Koenig would not want to come out
of any of the games pitched. He was the star on a good high school baseball team. His
coaches took little caution to prevent his injury. Three years to day later on April 27th
2004, Koenig filed suit against the North Mason School District over negligence charges.
The two litigants in this case are the defendant, North Mason School District and the
plaintiff, Jason Koenig. The suit was filed in April of 2004. However, the contents of
the case refer to incidents that take place three years prior while Jason Koenig was
pitching for the North Mason School district. These core incidents in regards to this cause
occurred between the dates of April 11th to April 27th, 2001 while Jason Koenig was a
high school junior pitching for the North Mason High school varsity baseball.
This case was filed in the Superior Court of Mason County, Washington. In this suit,
Jason Koenig is suing the school district for not adequately protecting his health and
his arm as a student athlete while under the supervision of their institution. Jason
Koenig claimed negligence in the districts management of his athletic capabilities by
not following the WIAA, Washing Interscholastic Activities Association, mandated
limit on how often a pitcher is allowed to pitch. Furthermore that the plaintiff was used
excessively not only in the amount of games played, but also in the amount of pitches
thrown per game. The plaintiff believes that district should have known that he was being
overused and put in danger. It is note worthy that Koenig sued the district and not Jay
Hultberg, Koenig’s coach at the time.
Koenig was asking the court to change the Washington Interscholastic Activities
Association rules so this type of injury would be avoided in the future. All of his pitching
was within the rules of Washington Interscholastic Activities Association. The rules state
that a pitcher must rest at least two days after pitching for three innings. Koenig was
hoping for a type of rule that would require pitch counts so coaches would be forced to
take players out of games, further preventing debilitating varsity high school baseball
injuries.
Four years after the case was filed, The Jury at the Superior Court of Mason County
in Washington ruled that the school distract wasn’t negligent. The Lead juror Mary
Newhall was cited in a Seattle Times article commenting that the Jury believed Jay
Hultberg—Koenig’s pitching coach in high school—did not have enough information on
the risk of high pitch counts at the time Koenig was injured. It is important to mention
that Hulberg was not mentioned in the lawsuit at all. Koenig was suing the school
distract, not his coaches. Koenig is now a professional photographer and his shoulder still
bothers him from time to time.
Biediger, Lawler, Overdevest, Corinaldes V. Quinnipiac University
Team:
Juan Figueira
Natasha Kardassis
Overview of the case - The Biediger, Lawler, Overdevest, Corinaldes V. Quinnipiac University
case filed was consequence of Quinnipiac University’s decision made in March 2009 to
terminate three athletic programs in order to inaugurate a women’s cheerleading team. The three
affected programs were men’s golf, men’s outdoor track and the women’s volleyball team. Five
frustrated members of the women’s volleyball team decided to pursue the matter through the
legal system. The decision to cut the women’s volleyball team was not only provocative because
of the effect it would take on its athletes, but also because cheerleading, at the time of the
decision, was not an officially recognized varsity intercollegiate sport. Moreover, eliminating
the volleyball team implied that the university stops offering scholarships to those particular
athletes. Five members of the women’s volleyball team along with the coach decided to sue the
university contending that the school’s decision was in violation of Title IX of the Educational
Act of 1972. Title XI states “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”1 The violation of Title
IX implied that the women’s volleyball team was discriminated by the school on the basis of se
when it came to various athletic opportunities.
Litigants - The plaintiffs in this case were Quinnipiac Women’s Volleyball team members
1
Title IX Education Amendments of 1972. http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm
Stephanie Biediger, Kayla Lawler, Erin Overdevest, Kristen Corinaldes, Logan Riker, and their
coach Robin Lamott Sparks. The defendant was Quinnipiac University.
Date and Court – The complaint was brought to the United States District court in the district of
Connecticut on April 16th 2009.
Status of the Case – The case was resolved and the court ruled that Quinnipiac University
violated title XI failing to provide equal athletic participation for women athletes. The court also
ruled that competitive cheerleading would not qualify as a varsity support under Title XI.
Plaintiff’s Request – The plaintiff’s request is to reverse Quinnipiac University’s decision to
reinstate the women’s volleyball team because by eliminating the program the university is
violating Title IX.
Juan Figueira
Natasha Kardassis
Overview of the case - The Biediger, Lawler, Overdevest, Corinaldes V. Quinnipiac University
case filed was consequence of Quinnipiac University’s decision made in March 2009 to
terminate three athletic programs in order to inaugurate a women’s cheerleading team. The three
affected programs were men’s golf, men’s outdoor track and the women’s volleyball team. Five
frustrated members of the women’s volleyball team decided to pursue the matter through the
legal system. The decision to cut the women’s volleyball team was not only provocative because
of the effect it would take on its athletes, but also because cheerleading, at the time of the
decision, was not an officially recognized varsity intercollegiate sport. Moreover, eliminating
the volleyball team implied that the university stops offering scholarships to those particular
athletes. Five members of the women’s volleyball team along with the coach decided to sue the
university contending that the school’s decision was in violation of Title IX of the Educational
Act of 1972. Title XI states “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”1 The violation of Title
IX implied that the women’s volleyball team was discriminated by the school on the basis of se
when it came to various athletic opportunities.
Litigants - The plaintiffs in this case were Quinnipiac Women’s Volleyball team members
1
Title IX Education Amendments of 1972. http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm
Stephanie Biediger, Kayla Lawler, Erin Overdevest, Kristen Corinaldes, Logan Riker, and their
coach Robin Lamott Sparks. The defendant was Quinnipiac University.
Date and Court – The complaint was brought to the United States District court in the district of
Connecticut on April 16th 2009.
Status of the Case – The case was resolved and the court ruled that Quinnipiac University
violated title XI failing to provide equal athletic participation for women athletes. The court also
ruled that competitive cheerleading would not qualify as a varsity support under Title XI.
Plaintiff’s Request – The plaintiff’s request is to reverse Quinnipiac University’s decision to
reinstate the women’s volleyball team because by eliminating the program the university is
violating Title IX.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
William Spooner v. Associated Press
Team:
Jordan Garnick
Saul Mangel
The names of the litigants are William H. Spooner (plaintiff), The Associated Press Inc.
and Jon Krawczynski (defendants). The lawsuit was filed on March 14, 2011. Also, this
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Lastly,
this matter is still pending.
The issues in dispute are whether the actions of Jon Krawcczynski, a reporter for the
Associated Press, give rise to a claim for damages on behalf of the Plaintiff William
Spooner, and therefore a claim against the Associated Press on the theory of Respondeat
Superior. Specifically, at issue is whether the twitter post by Defendant Krawczynski
published on his Associated Press Twitter account gives rise to a compensable claim for
Defamation, whereby the plaintiff was injured as a result of the defendant’s actions. As
such, the issue is whether the plaintiff proves the elements of a claim for defamation.
These elements are: that the words written are untrue, that the words are harmful and
that the words were made known to another person. In this case, plaintiff must prove that
the statement made by the defendant violates one or more of the criteria needed to prove
defamation. Additionally, plaintiff must prove that the words in the defendant’s
twitter, “Then he made an even worse call on Rockets. That’s NBA officiating folks,”
were harmful in that Defendant was implying that Plaintiff was engaged in fixing the
game. It does not appear that there is an issue that the words were published to a third
party. Commensurate with these issues are several factors that relate to whether the
words were actually stated by the plaintiff, and whether they were harmful. For example,
was the defendant close enough in proximity to the plaintiff and Coach Rambis, to have
actually heard what was stated? Did Spooner actually attempt to add points to the
Timberwolves? Were the calls made by the Plaintiff bad enough that they were
circumspect, given the fact that he was a seasoned referee? These issues are all relevant
to plaintiff’s burden of proving that the Twitter statement was both false and harmful to
him. The fact that the plaintiff was a public figure, entitles him to less protection for
untrue and negative statements than an ordinary citizen. Therefore, plaintiff must prove
that defendant’s actions were made with malice or a reckless disregard for the truth.
Moreover, because defendant’s statements potentially affected plaintiff’s occupation and
profession, they are potentially more libelous. Finally, given the fact that the publication
was made in the aftermath of the Tim Donaghy affair that scandalized the National
Basketball Association’s referees to the viewing public, were these Twitter posts to be
interpreted more scrupulously by the public as being harmful to the Plaintiff?
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for defamation per se to his professional and
business reputation, a declaratory judgment that the Twitter publication constitutes
defamation, an injunction requiring the removal of defamatory statements from the
Defendants’ Internet postings, and lastly if the court see fit that the defendant pays for
legal fees.
Jordan Garnick
Saul Mangel
The names of the litigants are William H. Spooner (plaintiff), The Associated Press Inc.
and Jon Krawczynski (defendants). The lawsuit was filed on March 14, 2011. Also, this
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Lastly,
this matter is still pending.
The issues in dispute are whether the actions of Jon Krawcczynski, a reporter for the
Associated Press, give rise to a claim for damages on behalf of the Plaintiff William
Spooner, and therefore a claim against the Associated Press on the theory of Respondeat
Superior. Specifically, at issue is whether the twitter post by Defendant Krawczynski
published on his Associated Press Twitter account gives rise to a compensable claim for
Defamation, whereby the plaintiff was injured as a result of the defendant’s actions. As
such, the issue is whether the plaintiff proves the elements of a claim for defamation.
These elements are: that the words written are untrue, that the words are harmful and
that the words were made known to another person. In this case, plaintiff must prove that
the statement made by the defendant violates one or more of the criteria needed to prove
defamation. Additionally, plaintiff must prove that the words in the defendant’s
twitter, “Then he made an even worse call on Rockets. That’s NBA officiating folks,”
were harmful in that Defendant was implying that Plaintiff was engaged in fixing the
game. It does not appear that there is an issue that the words were published to a third
party. Commensurate with these issues are several factors that relate to whether the
words were actually stated by the plaintiff, and whether they were harmful. For example,
was the defendant close enough in proximity to the plaintiff and Coach Rambis, to have
actually heard what was stated? Did Spooner actually attempt to add points to the
Timberwolves? Were the calls made by the Plaintiff bad enough that they were
circumspect, given the fact that he was a seasoned referee? These issues are all relevant
to plaintiff’s burden of proving that the Twitter statement was both false and harmful to
him. The fact that the plaintiff was a public figure, entitles him to less protection for
untrue and negative statements than an ordinary citizen. Therefore, plaintiff must prove
that defendant’s actions were made with malice or a reckless disregard for the truth.
Moreover, because defendant’s statements potentially affected plaintiff’s occupation and
profession, they are potentially more libelous. Finally, given the fact that the publication
was made in the aftermath of the Tim Donaghy affair that scandalized the National
Basketball Association’s referees to the viewing public, were these Twitter posts to be
interpreted more scrupulously by the public as being harmful to the Plaintiff?
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for defamation per se to his professional and
business reputation, a declaratory judgment that the Twitter publication constitutes
defamation, an injunction requiring the removal of defamatory statements from the
Defendants’ Internet postings, and lastly if the court see fit that the defendant pays for
legal fees.
Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens, Inc. and National Football League Properties
Team:
Emanuel Logothetis
Andrew Adams
Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens, Inc. and National Football League Properties
The case is a lawsuit between Frederick E. Bouchat, a citizen of Baltimore,
Maryland, against the Baltimore Ravens Football Club and the National Football
League. Bouchat filed this complaint through his attorney on May 8th, 1997 in
United States District Court for the District of Maryland Northern Division. Bouchat
is claiming that he created three original drawings, titled “The Ravens”, “Ravens 3”,
and “Ravens 4” that depicted a raven in many different forms and positions around
the date of December 5, 1995, to recognize the newly established Baltimore Ravens
football club and their move from Cleveland, Ohio. He then applied for and received
copyrights effective July 25, 1996 for “The Ravens” and on August 8th, 1996
for “Ravens 3” and “Ravens 4”. When the team was officially named the Ravens,
Bouchat was approached by John Moag, who was an employee at the Maryland
Stadium Authority. Moag commented on the drawings that Bouchat had drawn
up, and said that he could get them to the Ravens if he wanted to share them. After
their conversation, Bouchat faxed the drawings to Moag, who passed them on to the
Ravens, making sure that his name and the date of creation were on the drawings.
Shortly after receiving the drawing,s the Ravens copied Bouchat’s drawings and
declared them as their logos and trademarks. Since this decision was made, the
Ravens had been selling, distributing, and reproducing Bouchat’s copyrighted
drawings illegally in order to make profits and promote the team. Bouchat then sued
again, lost, and lost on appeal again.
Bouchat had asked the court for damages in the value of ten millions dollars
in order to make up for the lost profits that he believed he was entitled to by
creating the logo. He also asked for the Ravens and the NFL to relinquish any
profits and advantages that they gained through the illegal use of the copyrighted
drawings. The case was tried and decided in 1998, with the court ruling that the
Ravens did in fact infringe on the copyrights that were granted to Bouchat, but
Bouchat was not given any monetary compensation as the money made by the
Ravens was not necessarily because of the logo itself, as stated by the 4th District
Court of Appeals in 2003: "[i]f the use of the Flying B logo to designate the Ravens
could not reasonably be found to have affected the amount of revenue obtained
from an activity, the revenue from that activity could not reasonably be found
attributable to the infringement.". Since the decision in 1998, Bouchat has appealed
and refiled the case in multiple fashions in regards to continued distribution of the
logo.
Emanuel Logothetis
Andrew Adams
Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens, Inc. and National Football League Properties
The case is a lawsuit between Frederick E. Bouchat, a citizen of Baltimore,
Maryland, against the Baltimore Ravens Football Club and the National Football
League. Bouchat filed this complaint through his attorney on May 8th, 1997 in
United States District Court for the District of Maryland Northern Division. Bouchat
is claiming that he created three original drawings, titled “The Ravens”, “Ravens 3”,
and “Ravens 4” that depicted a raven in many different forms and positions around
the date of December 5, 1995, to recognize the newly established Baltimore Ravens
football club and their move from Cleveland, Ohio. He then applied for and received
copyrights effective July 25, 1996 for “The Ravens” and on August 8th, 1996
for “Ravens 3” and “Ravens 4”. When the team was officially named the Ravens,
Bouchat was approached by John Moag, who was an employee at the Maryland
Stadium Authority. Moag commented on the drawings that Bouchat had drawn
up, and said that he could get them to the Ravens if he wanted to share them. After
their conversation, Bouchat faxed the drawings to Moag, who passed them on to the
Ravens, making sure that his name and the date of creation were on the drawings.
Shortly after receiving the drawing,s the Ravens copied Bouchat’s drawings and
declared them as their logos and trademarks. Since this decision was made, the
Ravens had been selling, distributing, and reproducing Bouchat’s copyrighted
drawings illegally in order to make profits and promote the team. Bouchat then sued
again, lost, and lost on appeal again.
Bouchat had asked the court for damages in the value of ten millions dollars
in order to make up for the lost profits that he believed he was entitled to by
creating the logo. He also asked for the Ravens and the NFL to relinquish any
profits and advantages that they gained through the illegal use of the copyrighted
drawings. The case was tried and decided in 1998, with the court ruling that the
Ravens did in fact infringe on the copyrights that were granted to Bouchat, but
Bouchat was not given any monetary compensation as the money made by the
Ravens was not necessarily because of the logo itself, as stated by the 4th District
Court of Appeals in 2003: "[i]f the use of the Flying B logo to designate the Ravens
could not reasonably be found to have affected the amount of revenue obtained
from an activity, the revenue from that activity could not reasonably be found
attributable to the infringement.". Since the decision in 1998, Bouchat has appealed
and refiled the case in multiple fashions in regards to continued distribution of the
logo.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Dixon v. Texas Southern University
Team: Soo Mee Yoon and Zoe Krohn
Names of Litigants:
Plaintiff: Surina Dixon
Defendant: Texas Southern University
Date Lawsuit was filed: September 15, 2011
Court in which lawsuit was filed: The United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas Houston Division
Present status of case: Closed
A concise statement of the issue or issues in dispute: Surina Dixon was hired as
the head women’s basketball coach at the Texas Southern University. She sued
the Texas Southern University on the basis of civil rights violations under Title IX
and Title VII claiming gender discrimination and retaliation. She was hired by TSU
and then fired within three months by athletic director Charles McClelland after
questioning the terms of the contract, including the years and the salary. Dixon
was offered a one-year contract at $75,000, while the new men’s basketball coach
Tony Harvey received a five-year contract at $150,000 per year. Dixon specifically
noted that a Tony Harvey had received a longer contract and higher salary around
the same time of her employment, even though she had previous head coaching
experience and he had none.
What the plaintiff is asking the court for: Equitable relief for holding a similar
position as her male counterpart, back pay and front pay, compensatory damages,
attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, taxable court costs, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest.
Names of Litigants:
Plaintiff: Surina Dixon
Defendant: Texas Southern University
Date Lawsuit was filed: September 15, 2011
Court in which lawsuit was filed: The United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas Houston Division
Present status of case: Closed
A concise statement of the issue or issues in dispute: Surina Dixon was hired as
the head women’s basketball coach at the Texas Southern University. She sued
the Texas Southern University on the basis of civil rights violations under Title IX
and Title VII claiming gender discrimination and retaliation. She was hired by TSU
and then fired within three months by athletic director Charles McClelland after
questioning the terms of the contract, including the years and the salary. Dixon
was offered a one-year contract at $75,000, while the new men’s basketball coach
Tony Harvey received a five-year contract at $150,000 per year. Dixon specifically
noted that a Tony Harvey had received a longer contract and higher salary around
the same time of her employment, even though she had previous head coaching
experience and he had none.
What the plaintiff is asking the court for: Equitable relief for holding a similar
position as her male counterpart, back pay and front pay, compensatory damages,
attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, taxable court costs, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Jane Doe V. US Swimming Inc
Team:
Taylor Lindman
Patrice Laquinte
The names of litigants
Plaintiff: Jane Doe, a minor, age 15. She brings suit through her father John Doe. The plaintiff brings suit under the pseudonym ‘Jane Doe’ because of her age and the nature of the allegations
Defendants: United States Swimming, Pacific Swimming Inc., San Jose Aquatics, Inc. the San Jose Aquatics, Inc. employee ANDREW KING
The date the lawsuit was filed
March 18, 2010
The court in which the lawsuit was filed
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Clara
Present Status of the Case
case is awaiting trial June 25, 2012
A concise statement of the issues in dispute
Coach King was hired as a Coach at San Jose Aquatics a branch of Pacific Swimming Inc. and sanctioned by US Swimming. King was hired at San Jose Aquatics despite numerous allegations of sexual abuse at his previous employment in Washington state and Chabot college. There was no screening process. Beginning in May of 2008 until 2009 King, while acting within the scope of his employment King sexually abused the plaintiff and numerous others. Jane Doe brings suit against the defendants claiming negligence associated with King’s hiring, promotion and retention. The plaintiff also brings suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery.
What the Plaintiff is asking the court for
Compensation in the form of all special and economic damages, costs of the suit and for such other relief as the court may deem fit and proper.
Taylor Lindman
Patrice Laquinte
The names of litigants
Plaintiff: Jane Doe, a minor, age 15. She brings suit through her father John Doe. The plaintiff brings suit under the pseudonym ‘Jane Doe’ because of her age and the nature of the allegations
Defendants: United States Swimming, Pacific Swimming Inc., San Jose Aquatics, Inc. the San Jose Aquatics, Inc. employee ANDREW KING
The date the lawsuit was filed
March 18, 2010
The court in which the lawsuit was filed
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Clara
Present Status of the Case
case is awaiting trial June 25, 2012
A concise statement of the issues in dispute
Coach King was hired as a Coach at San Jose Aquatics a branch of Pacific Swimming Inc. and sanctioned by US Swimming. King was hired at San Jose Aquatics despite numerous allegations of sexual abuse at his previous employment in Washington state and Chabot college. There was no screening process. Beginning in May of 2008 until 2009 King, while acting within the scope of his employment King sexually abused the plaintiff and numerous others. Jane Doe brings suit against the defendants claiming negligence associated with King’s hiring, promotion and retention. The plaintiff also brings suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery.
What the Plaintiff is asking the court for
Compensation in the form of all special and economic damages, costs of the suit and for such other relief as the court may deem fit and proper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)