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.
Friday, November 4, 2011
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)