((HT: CBSSports))
The University of Kentucky Athletics Association says former Kentucky basketball coach Billy Gillispie ((pictured thanks cnn.com)) has sued the wrong people and in the wrong place.
The athletics association has asked a federal judge in Texas to either dismiss Gillispie's lawsuit over his firing or move the case to Kentucky. In a motion filed Friday in federal court, the association's attorneys say the school has minimum contact with the state of Texas, giving the court there no jurisdiction to hear Gillispie's claims.
The association's attorneys also claim the University of Kentucky, not the athletics association, hired Gillispie and paid him.
Gillispie sued the University of Kentucky Athletics Association in federal court in Dallas on May 27, claiming fraud and breach of contract. Gillispie claims the school never intended to sign him to long-term deal. The school has denied the allegations. He is seeking at least $6 million -- about $1.5 million per year for four of the five years he says were left on his agreement.
Gillispie's attorney, Demetrios Anaipakos of Houston, said the motion didn't address Gillispie's central complaint, that he agreed to a $6 million contract.
"It doesn't matter if you are in Texas or Kentucky, a deal is a deal," Anaipakos said.
A day after Gillispie sued the athletics association, the University of Kentucky sued Gillispie in state court in Kentucky. The university wants the court to rule that the two-page memorandum of understanding Gillispie signed after his hiring in 2007 was not the equivalent of a full contract.
Gillispie went 40-27 in two seasons with the Wildcats, including a 22-14 mark last season that tied for the second-most losses in the program's 106-year history. A stumble down the stretch left the Wildcats out of the NCAA tournament for the first time since 1991.
His one-page termination letter concluded Gillispie was not a "good fit" for the school, and it specifically cited his failure to agree on a full employment contract.
1 comment:
Venue is very important in federal court. A Texas jurisdiction can harm the defendant for many factors, such as: more expenses (having to travel to Texas, paying for the time and travel expenses of your lawyer, expert witnesses, lay witnesses, a Texas jury may be less inclined to sympathize with an outsider from Kentucky, and the plaintiff's lawyer more likely than not is more familiar with the local rules, judges, and jurors than the defendant's Kentucky lawyer. Venue is very important because it can play a vital role in the eventual outcome of the case. The court should be very careful to ensure that fairness exists and that the “home-field” advantage is not an issue with this set of circumstances.
Now, the Ky. Athletic Association is moving for a change of venue or dismissal in the case. The KAA states that it has insufficient minimum contacts with Texas and it would not have reasonably considered there to be a possibility of being hailed into court there. This motion for a change of venue will not likely be granted to the defendant. As long as the KAA has benefited from Texas, it should have expected that there existed a possibility of them having to defend themselves in a Texas court. I believe minimum contacts between KAA and TX. exist because they have recruited players and coaches from the state, marketed and sold merchandise via the internet to citizens of Texas and benefited in other ways from the state. As long as minimum contacts are established (which they most certainly will) and the benefits of Texas being the jurisdiction outweigh the inconvenience to the defendant, KAA, this motion for a change of venue will be denied.
The other portion of the motion will likely be approached much more scrupulously by the judge. If Gillispie sued the wrong folks, the case canl be dismissed or amended. However, if the case is chunked, the statute of limitations is likely not going to play a roll and the plaintiff may simply file another case involving the University athletic department.
Sorry for my post being so long. I’m sure many will disagree with me and my opinion is certainly not a “lock” but I will follow this case to see how my predictions have panned out. I am not a lawyer, or a law student for that matter, so if any of you find inaccuracies amongst this post, please point them out to me as I am a a mere beef farmer. I drive a tractor all day and read lots of legal texts but am not trained in civil procedure and diversity jurisdiction. Thanks for reading.
Post a Comment