UW's Legal bases for their motion to dismiss detailed

[Cougsocal]

In case you wanted to read UW's legal arguments.

I believe the conference's actions to exclude. without objection or complaint, and USC and UCLA failure to dispute, sinks the first two arguments despite any vargaries in the language. Every conference member clearly understood what would happen if you provided notice of intent -- exclusion.

Regarding the third argument, I don't know the first thing about sovereign immunity principles, but it is a, "have our cake and eat it to" argument, which generally doesn't go down well in court. The argument is you can't sue us because we are immune, and you can't proceed because we are indispensable parties to the suit. Lawsuits happen between those with competing sovereign immunity all the time. If entities claiming sovereign immunity, like a state or governmental body, could stop the legal dispute resolution process by simply refusing to participate, the legal system would be a complete mess at the governmental dispute level, it is not.

The briefing is about halfway down.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Loyal Coug1]

In case you wanted to read UW's legal arguments.

I believe the conference's actions to exclude. without objection or complaint, and USC and UCLA failure to dispute, sinks the first two arguments despite any vargaries in the language. Every conference member clearly understood what would happen if you provided notice of intent -- exclusion.

Regarding the third argument, I don't know the first thing about sovereign immunity principles, but it is a, "have our cake and eat it to" argument, which generally doesn't go down well in court. The argument is you can't sue us because we are immune, and you can't proceed because we are indispensable parties to the suit. Lawsuits happen between those with competing sovereign immunity all the time. If entities claiming sovereign immunity, like a state or governmental body, could stop the legal dispute resolution process by simply refusing to participate, the legal system would be a complete mess at the governmental dispute level, it is not.

The briefing is about halfway down.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

So riddle me this batman.

How come the uw's Washington State Assistant Attorney General is the first attorney named in uw's Motion to Dismiss? Go to the last page to see. And a couple other documents in the middles.

 

[Cougsocal]

So riddle me this batman.

How come the uw's Washington State Assistant Attorney General is the first attorney named in uw's Motion to Dismiss? Go to the last page to see. And a couple other documents in the middles.

Token UW "in house" counsel, WSU and UW have legal representation through the AG's office. There you go, Riddler!

 

[dgibbons]

So riddle me this batman.

How come the uw's Washington State Assistant Attorney General is the first attorney named in uw's Motion to Dismiss? Go to the last page to see. And a couple other documents in the middles.

The same reason the AG is on WSU's pleadings- the outside counsel is not admitted in Washington and pro hac vice applications are pending. A pro hac vice application is a motion to allow out of state counsel to allow the out of state counsel to appear in the case. The out of state counsel must have a Washington attorney sponsor the application and appear in the case.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Token UW "in house" counsel, WSU and UW have legal representation through the AG's office. There you go, Riddler!

Yes I know that>I worked with our Asst AG' office on numerous occasions during my time working at WSU. One of the assistant assistants was quite hot.

I am referring to a thread aways back where I said something about "where's our AG?" and a poster said A. They suck and B. We weren't allowed to utilize them in this matter. Well either he's wrong or UW didn't get the memo. Wouldn't that be fun to have two assistant AG's fighting it out?

 

[Loyal Coug1]

The same reason the AG is on WSU's pleadings- the outside counsel is not admitted in Washington and pro hac vice applications are pending. A pro hac vice application is a motion to allow out of state counsel to allow the out of state counsel to appear in the case. The out of state counsel must have a Washington attorney sponsor the application and appear in the case.

Boy that clears it up for me. What pleadings have we done? The lawsuit I guess?

 

[dgibbons]

Boy that clears it up for me. What pleadings have we done? The lawsuit I guess?

You may have heard of the concept of filing documents in court.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

You may have heard of the concept of filing documents in court.

haha. I've seen plenty, usually with my name plastered across the top. I just saw their motion documents, have not seen any documents that WSU has filed.

Hey, I'm starting to like you. I don't need that condescension.

 

[Cougsocal]

Yes I know that>I worked with our Asst AG' office on numerous occasions during my time working at WSU. One of the assistant assistants was quite hot.

I am referring to a thread aways back where I said something about "where's our AG?" and a poster said A. They suck and B. We weren't allowed to utilize them in this matter. Well either he's wrong or UW didn't get the memo. Wouldn't that be fun to have two assistant AG's fighting it out?

At least in my mind there is a obvious conflict of interest, as both sets of AGs have the same middle and upper management, at a minimum. I remember that post to, and it seemed to make sense, but obviously the conflict standards for AGs is less strict. As for whether AGs are any good, some are very good, others are quite ordinary. Generally, the big law firms get the best and the brightest minds, and because you pay through the nose for their services, far more is expected. AG recruitment, on the other hand, is at a lower academic level, and they are unionized, thus getting rid of the bad ones is a really chore ... and their best are frequently cherry picked away.

I had a legal argument in a water rights case in Ritzville as a young pup, against an AG in his 50's with a bar number much lower than mine (practicing far longer), who was so nervous he was visibly shaking, voice quivering and could only deliver his argument looking down and reading verbatim from a scripted, clutching the lectern. Since "the state" was his client, he could get away with it. Big law firms would never let that happen, your client is frequently sitting next to you, with an inflated legal bill in hand.

 

[dgibbons]

At least in my mind there is a obvious conflict of interest, as both sets of AGs have the same middle and upper management, at a minimum. I remember that post to, and it seemed to make sense, but obviously the conflict standards for AGs is less strict. As for whether AGs are any good, some are very good, others are quite ordinary. Generally, the big law firms get the best and the brightest minds, and because you pay through the nose for their services, far more is expected. AG recruitment, on the other hand, is at a lower academic level, and they are unionized, thus getting rid of the bad ones is a really chore ... and their best are frequently cherry picked away.

I had a legal argument in a water rights case in Ritzville as a young pup, against an AG in his 50's with a bar number much lower than mine (practicing far longer), who was so nervous he was visibly shaking, voice quivering and could only deliver his argument looking down and reading verbatim from a scripted, clutching the lectern. Since "the state" was his client, he could get away with it. Big law firms would never let that happen, your client is frequently sitting next to you, with an inflated legal bill in hand.

I'm not sure how it works for conflicts between state agencies. There must be some kind of process.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

I'm not sure how it works for conflicts between state agencies. There must be some kind of process.

Yeah well this is a conflict within a state agency. What the court needs to do is tell uw to pound sand. Problem solved

 

[dgibbons]

Yeah well this is a conflict within a state agency. What the court needs to do is tell uw to pound sand. Problem solved

I mean WSU v. uw, and whatever rules or procedures the AG's office is supposed to follow in that circumstance.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

I mean WSU v. uw, and whatever rules or procedures the AG's office is supposed to follow in that circumstance.

Gotcha. I guess it's sit on our hands and pray for a miracle on all fronts.

 

[95coug]

Their contradictory and crafty use of language is almost funny.

They claim that the court has no authority to rule in WSU's favor...and ask the court to rule in UW's favor.

Then, note their strategic use of quote marks:

To ensure that all members remain in the Conference through the term of the current media rights agreements, the Bylaws prohibit a member from delivering a notice of a “withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024."

The section actually says

"No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024; provided, that if any member does deliver a notice of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024..."

See what they did there? First, they didn't quote from the correct sentence - they chose to use a second phrase that fits the language they want better. Then, they placed their quote to make it appear that the withdrawal date is the triggering mechanism, while the bylaws clearly make the notice date the trigger.


Nothing in the Bylaws prohibits members from leaving the Conference after August 1, 2024.

True

Nor do the Bylaws prohibit announcing or giving notice prior to August 1 that the member plans to withdraw after August 1, 2024.

Actually, that's exactly what they say. The date of departure is irrelevant.

WSU and OSU's contrary interpretation makes no sense, as it would allow schools to withdraw on August 2, 2024, so long as they waited until August 1 to tell anyone about it.

That's precisely what the plain language says, and what it allows. Maybe it doesn't make much sense, but it's what you signed on to.



Their entire argument fails within the bylaws. There is no mechanism in them that would allow the conference or any remaining members to withhold travel expenses and reimbursements from any members. UW claims that the rest of their athletics are threatened if they don't maintain a vote. They're not. The bylaws only allow the conference to retain media payments. Actual operating payments continue as long as they're a member.



For example, WSU and OSU allege and have argued extensively that the Conference adopted a certain interpretation of the Bylaws when UCLA and USC announced their departures in 2022 and when Colorado then announced theirs in 2023. UW, however, is differently situated from UCLA. USC. and Colorado with respect to those arguments.

Exactly how is UW different? If the conference adopted that approach a year before UW announced, and a week before UW announced...why should they take a different approach? Doesn't this show the court that the same rules are being consistently applied?



The one argument that may have merit - UW claims that California law governs the Pac-12 and its bylaws. If that's true, and if that's noted somewhere in the conference documents that all members agreed to, then the court should toss the whole thing without ruling and it should get re-filed in California. I haven't found that designation anywhere - and the bylaws don't refer to a court, they direct disputes to the CEO group - and since WSU and OSU both went along with filing in Washington, I'm guessing it doesn't exist (hard as that is to believe). If no jurisdiction was ever established, there won't be a legal resolution, because there's no court that has authority over all parties.

 

[Coug90]

Their contradictory and crafty use of language is almost funny.

They claim that the court has no authority to rule in WSU's favor...and ask the court to rule in UW's favor.

Then, note their strategic use of quote marks:

To ensure that all members remain in the Conference through the term of the current media rights agreements, the Bylaws prohibit a member from delivering a notice of a “withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024."

The section actually says

"No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024; provided, that if any member does deliver a notice of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024..."

See what they did there? First, they didn't quote from the correct sentence - they chose to use a second phrase that fits the language they want better. Then, they placed their quote to make it appear that the withdrawal date is the triggering mechanism, while the bylaws clearly make the notice date the trigger.


Nothing in the Bylaws prohibits members from leaving the Conference after August 1, 2024.

True

Nor do the Bylaws prohibit announcing or giving notice prior to August 1 that the member plans to withdraw after August 1, 2024.

Actually, that's exactly what they say. The date of departure is irrelevant.

WSU and OSU's contrary interpretation makes no sense, as it would allow schools to withdraw on August 2, 2024, so long as they waited until August 1 to tell anyone about it.

That's precisely what the plain language says, and what it allows. Maybe it doesn't make much sense, but it's what you signed on to.



Their entire argument fails within the bylaws. There is no mechanism in them that would allow the conference or any remaining members to withhold travel expenses and reimbursements from any members. UW claims that the rest of their athletics are threatened if they don't maintain a vote. They're not. The bylaws only allow the conference to retain media payments. Actual operating payments continue as long as they're a member.



For example, WSU and OSU allege and have argued extensively that the Conference adopted a certain interpretation of the Bylaws when UCLA and USC announced their departures in 2022 and when Colorado then announced theirs in 2023. UW, however, is differently situated from UCLA. USC. and Colorado with respect to those arguments.

Exactly how is UW different? If the conference adopted that approach a year before UW announced, and a week before UW announced...why should they take a different approach? Doesn't this show the court that the same rules are being consistently applied?



The one argument that may have merit - UW claims that California law governs the Pac-12 and its bylaws. If that's true, and if that's noted somewhere in the conference documents that all members agreed to, then the court should toss the whole thing without ruling and it should get re-filed in California. I haven't found that designation anywhere - and the bylaws don't refer to a court, they direct disputes to the CEO group - and since WSU and OSU both went along with filing in Washington, I'm guessing it doesn't exist (hard as that is to believe). If no jurisdiction was ever established, there won't be a legal resolution, because there's no court that has authority over all parties.

Last argument. “Do you know who we are?”

 

[95coug]

Gotcha. I guess it's sit on our hands and pray for a miracle on all fronts.

It's not unusual for state agencies to sue each other. I think when those are significant disputes, the AG's office acts in an advisory capacity and lets outside counsel duke it out.

 

[Stretch 74]

Their contradictory and crafty use of language is almost funny.

They claim that the court has no authority to rule in WSU's favor...and ask the court to rule in UW's favor.

Then, note their strategic use of quote marks:

To ensure that all members remain in the Conference through the term of the current media rights agreements, the Bylaws prohibit a member from delivering a notice of a “withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024."

The section actually says

"No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024; provided, that if any member does deliver a notice of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024..."

See what they did there? First, they didn't quote from the correct sentence - they chose to use a second phrase that fits the language they want better. Then, they placed their quote to make it appear that the withdrawal date is the triggering mechanism, while the bylaws clearly make the notice date the trigger.


Nothing in the Bylaws prohibits members from leaving the Conference after August 1, 2024.

True

Nor do the Bylaws prohibit announcing or giving notice prior to August 1 that the member plans to withdraw after August 1, 2024.

Actually, that's exactly what they say. The date of departure is irrelevant.

WSU and OSU's contrary interpretation makes no sense, as it would allow schools to withdraw on August 2, 2024, so long as they waited until August 1 to tell anyone about it.

That's precisely what the plain language says, and what it allows. Maybe it doesn't make much sense, but it's what you signed on to.



Their entire argument fails within the bylaws. There is no mechanism in them that would allow the conference or any remaining members to withhold travel expenses and reimbursements from any members. UW claims that the rest of their athletics are threatened if they don't maintain a vote. They're not. The bylaws only allow the conference to retain media payments. Actual operating payments continue as long as they're a member.



For example, WSU and OSU allege and have argued extensively that the Conference adopted a certain interpretation of the Bylaws when UCLA and USC announced their departures in 2022 and when Colorado then announced theirs in 2023. UW, however, is differently situated from UCLA. USC. and Colorado with respect to those arguments.

Exactly how is UW different? If the conference adopted that approach a year before UW announced, and a week before UW announced...why should they take a different approach? Doesn't this show the court that the same rules are being consistently applied?



The one argument that may have merit - UW claims that California law governs the Pac-12 and its bylaws. If that's true, and if that's noted somewhere in the conference documents that all members agreed to, then the court should toss the whole thing without ruling and it should get re-filed in California. I haven't found that designation anywhere - and the bylaws don't refer to a court, they direct disputes to the CEO group - and since WSU and OSU both went along with filing in Washington, I'm guessing it doesn't exist (hard as that is to believe). If no jurisdiction was ever established, there won't be a legal resolution, because there's no court that has authority over all parties.

Thanks for your level headed commentary of the uw's filing. Much appreciated from me. Since I don't keep track that much of who is and isn't an attorney here, are you? Or are you just someone with some common sense and rational thinking, which I really hope is something that the Colfax judge has.

In case past history of the uw has been forgotten (medical fraud, football cheating, special treatment by Norm Maleng's office for uw criminals, etc) this really proves that they have no conscience, no morals, no loyalty, and are guided by greed, arrogance, and a deeply entrenched sense of entitlement. Miserable bastards!!!

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Thanks for your level headed commentary of the uw's filing. Much appreciated from me. Since I don't keep track that much of who is and isn't an attorney here, are you? Or are you just someone with some common sense and rational thinking, which I really hope is something that the Colfax judge has.

In case past history of the uw has been forgotten (medical fraud, football cheating, special treatment by Norm Maleng's office for uw criminals, etc) this really proves that they have no conscience, no morals, no loyalty, and are guided by greed, arrogance, and a deeply entrenched sense of entitlement. Miserable bastards!!!

This should be a slam dunk, right? UCLA, USC and Colorado all gave up their voting rights. So why do the hateful 7 get think they should get different treatment? Because they woke up and realized there is money to be had?

 

[95coug]

Thanks for your level headed commentary of the uw's filing. Much appreciated from me. Since I don't keep track that much of who is and isn't an attorney here, are you? Or are you just someone with some common sense and rational thinking, which I really hope is something that the Colfax judge has.

In case past history of the uw has been forgotten (medical fraud, football cheating, special treatment by Norm Maleng's office for uw criminals, etc) this really proves that they have no conscience, no morals, no loyalty, and are guided by greed, arrogance, and a deeply entrenched sense of entitlement. Miserable bastards!!!

Nope, not a lawyer...but I spend a lot of time reading, interpreting, and explaining law and contracts.

As for your second paragraph...which part of that is a surprise?

 

[CougEd]

I agree with Canzano... we need to see the Discovery. We need to see who was the driver in all of this.

 

[etowncoug]

Their contradictory and crafty use of language is almost funny.

They claim that the court has no authority to rule in WSU's favor...and ask the court to rule in UW's favor.

Then, note their strategic use of quote marks:

To ensure that all members remain in the Conference through the term of the current media rights agreements, the Bylaws prohibit a member from delivering a notice of a “withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024."

The section actually says

"No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024; provided, that if any member does deliver a notice of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024..."

See what they did there? First, they didn't quote from the correct sentence - they chose to use a second phrase that fits the language they want better. Then, they placed their quote to make it appear that the withdrawal date is the triggering mechanism, while the bylaws clearly make the notice date the trigger.


Nothing in the Bylaws prohibits members from leaving the Conference after August 1, 2024.

True

Nor do the Bylaws prohibit announcing or giving notice prior to August 1 that the member plans to withdraw after August 1, 2024.

Actually, that's exactly what they say. The date of departure is irrelevant.

WSU and OSU's contrary interpretation makes no sense, as it would allow schools to withdraw on August 2, 2024, so long as they waited until August 1 to tell anyone about it.

That's precisely what the plain language says, and what it allows. Maybe it doesn't make much sense, but it's what you signed on to.



Their entire argument fails within the bylaws. There is no mechanism in them that would allow the conference or any remaining members to withhold travel expenses and reimbursements from any members. UW claims that the rest of their athletics are threatened if they don't maintain a vote. They're not. The bylaws only allow the conference to retain media payments. Actual operating payments continue as long as they're a member.



For example, WSU and OSU allege and have argued extensively that the Conference adopted a certain interpretation of the Bylaws when UCLA and USC announced their departures in 2022 and when Colorado then announced theirs in 2023. UW, however, is differently situated from UCLA. USC. and Colorado with respect to those arguments.

Exactly how is UW different? If the conference adopted that approach a year before UW announced, and a week before UW announced...why should they take a different approach? Doesn't this show the court that the same rules are being consistently applied?



The one argument that may have merit - UW claims that California law governs the Pac-12 and its bylaws. If that's true, and if that's noted somewhere in the conference documents that all members agreed to, then the court should toss the whole thing without ruling and it should get re-filed in California. I haven't found that designation anywhere - and the bylaws don't refer to a court, they direct disputes to the CEO group - and since WSU and OSU both went along with filing in Washington, I'm guessing it doesn't exist (hard as that is to believe). If no jurisdiction was ever established, there won't be a legal resolution, because there's no court that has authority over all parties.

A motion to dismiss needed to be filed. They just don't have much of an argument.

 

[dgibbons]

This should be a slam dunk, right? UCLA, USC and Colorado all gave up their voting rights. So why do the hateful 7 get think they should get different treatment? Because they woke up and realized there is money to be had?

They did not give up their voting rights. They were informed by the conference that they no longer had voting rights.

 

[BSpike76]

They did not give up their voting rights. They were informed by the conference that they no longer had voting rights.

How can that be?🙄

From the same office that now says everybody gets a vote.🤦

 

[CougInSpain]

They did not give up their voting rights. They were informed by the conference that they no longer had voting rights.

It would still be a slam dunk based on this precedent alone. Being told that you no longer have a vote due to the impending departure would indicate that the others would be subject to the same fate. So now we have to define what it means to "Give notice" because that seems to be the main argument by the 7 other departing schools.

 

[Suudy]

That's precisely what the plain language says, and what it allows. Maybe it doesn't make much sense, but it's what you signed on to.

I makes perfect sense to me. Announcing prior to 1 Aug 2024 leads to exactly what is happening here. Just announcing creates obvious conflicts of interest, puts the conference in a terrible negotiation position for media rights and other deals, and creates problems for the remaining schools. I think the clause is there to protect those who remain and is intentionally there for that reason.

 

[longtimecoug]

It would still be a slam dunk based on this precedent alone. Being told that you no longer have a vote due to the impending departure would indicate that the others would be subject to the same fate. So now we have to define what it means to "Give notice" because that seems to be the main argument by the 7 other departing schools.

It seems that they are splitting hairs on the "give notice" thing, clinging to a definition that requires some legal written document.

 

[dgibbons]

I makes perfect sense to me. Announcing prior to 1 Aug 2024 leads to exactly what is happening here. Just announcing creates obvious conflicts of interest, puts the conference in a terrible negotiation position for media rights and other deals, and creates problems for the remaining schools. I think the clause is there to protect those who remain and is intentionally there for that reason.

If the language was deliberate (and I'm not sure it was), it attempts to prevent exactly what uw is arguing here. But it occurs by omission. The form, contents and even how to serve the "notice of withdrawal" is not defined in the bylaws. So, if for example the CU Athletic Director sends a "heads up" email that CU was calling a press conference later that day to announce CU was joining the Big XII that can be considered a "notice of withdrawal."

 

[Stretch 74]

Nope, not a lawyer...but I spend a lot of time reading, interpreting, and explaining law and contracts.

As for your second paragraph...which part of that is a surprise?

None of it is a surprise to me, just a reminder here for anyone else that is either too young to have lived through that stuff or had pulled a Rip Van Winkle for 3-4 decades.