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.
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