According to KREM, TRO granted

[mikalalas]

Now the issue is TRO enforcement. Right now, only WSU and UW are bound. In theory, George and the other schools could still meet and they would have the 9 necessary votes to dissolve the conference, as they are all out of state, and not subject Washington Superior Court jurisdiction at this point.

The courts LEGAL LANGUAGE in the RULING, stated that UCLA, USC, etc, VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION, BYLAWS, BY GIVING NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL EARLY.

As such according to the language and the courts ruling, even if the court does not actively enforce, etc, that means that USC, UCLA, and the rest of the 10 gave notice early, violated the constitution, bylaws, and therefore are INELIGIBLE to VOTE, and even if they do VOTE, it's NOT BINDING.

WSU'S legal counsel, WSU can officially, PUBLICALLY ANNOUNCED, SAY "ACCORDING TO THE RULING, THOSE THAT LEFT EARLY, GAVE NOTICE EARLY, VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION, BYLAWS, AND THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THAT LEGAL LANGUAGE, RULING, EVEN IF THE COURTS DONT ACTIVELY ENFORCE, THOSE THAT LEFT EARLY, GAVE NOTICE EARLY, DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, AND IF THEY VOTE, IT WONT BE LEGAL, AND IF THEY VOTE TO DISSOLVE THE PAC 12, IT WONT BE LEGAL, ENFORCEABLE, AND THE PAC 12 WILL STILL BE INTACT, ETC, AND WSU, OSU, ETC, WILL GOTO THE COURTS AGAIN".

They can't legally vote, and even if they do vote to dissolve the PAC 12, since it is illegal for them to vote, the PAC 12 is NOT dissolved, especially if WSU, and it's legal counsel, call attention to those facts, etc.

 

[95coug]

My opinion is that it is binding on the conference. As alleged in the complaint, the Pac-12 is an unincorporated association that does business in each of the states where a member is located. That means the conference is a Washington resident.

For Kliavkoff, I'm not certain the TRO is binding on him. But is seems like he has not appetite to fight it.

Well, and even if it's not binding on the conference, it's binding on UW. They can't attend. OSU and WSU can, but won't vote in favor. The bylaws require 9 yes votes to make any changes, which they can still get if it's unanimous and if 9 presidents are willing to defy a court order (someone will not be). And if they go forward, they immediately lose BIG in the public opinion battle, and whatever vote they make will immediately be legally challenged. And, no matter what court that challenge occurs in - no judge will look kindly on open defiance of a court order, regardless of jurisdiction.

In short, proceeding with a meeting is a losing proposition. So they won't...publicly. But they've already been on a conference that didn't include WSU and OSU, and they're plotting what to do next.


Edit to add: Regarding Kliavkoff, if the ruling is binding on the conference, it's also binding on him as an agent of the conference. He can't - as Pac-12 Commissioner - arrange a meeting of 10-12 presidents. But, as an average man on the street, he could arrange a gathering over beers for 10 of his pals who happen to be university presidents. That's where the order fails to do what we want it to - it drives the conference and the 10 into the shadows, where they can do whatever they want without rules or oversight.

 

[mikalalas]

Should have said that only WSU and UW are under the Court's jurisdiction. Think of it this way - a UK court issues a TRO against you. It ain't worth jack outside the UK, until a court where you are located, i.e. has jurisdiction over you, agrees to honor it -- that's enforcement. Normally, there isn't a problem, unless it is fought. George could go to a Cali court and ask them refuse to enforce it for a number of reasons. Because the listed defendants include "the Pac 12 conference," which is not a corporation, and George, I'm not entirely sure who is covered by the TRO, beyond George. If it were me, I would have listed the other presidents by name, but I'm not a Wall Street big wig either. Hopefully, this was a situation where George felt obligated to hold the board meeting, and that he simply needed legal cover, i.e. the TRO, not to do so. If he is "hell bent" on holding the meeting, this ain't over by a long shot.

LIKELY other courts, Cali courts, federal courts UPHOLD, RESPECT the WA ST ruling, therefore the ruling probably does apply to those outside WA.