Former Players v. Football Program *** Thread
- Thread starter AuroraHawk
- Start date
- Status
For what its worth, the 2 year statute of limitations for 1983 actions is governed by the substantive law of the state, and that is two years. 8th Circuit has controlling authority to that effect.
Haven’t checked yet. En route to KC for depositions this week. I’ll check later tonight.
EDIT: Just checked. Plaintiffs filed an unresisted Motion to File an Amended Complaint. The proposed Amended Complaint is attached as an exhibit to the motion. Since it is unresisted (i.e. uncontested), the standard practice is for the magistrate to grant the motion and order the clerk of court to file the Amended Complaint. This will likely take place tomorrow.
This will put the Defendants "on the clock" to respond to the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint is 77 pages long (8 counts again) and includes some new factual allegations (including new photographs) but, to be blunt, I'm tired and it has been a long day and I've got a long day of client deposition prep tomorrow. I don't have the energy to try to compare what might be in the old complaint versus new complaint.
It seems as though Plaintiffs may be trying to characterize some of their previous counts under the guise of "conspiracy" as opposed to simply claiming Title VII claims. Again, I don't have the energy right now to compare the characterization of the counts in the old v. new complaints but it appears to me that they are trying to get around what appeared to be very solid statute of limitations arguments. I'd have to examine what the statute of limitations is for civil conspiracy under Iowa law. That one is not at the tip of my fingers.
In any event, I believe that Defendants will have 14 days to file their response. Based upon my cursory initial read of the Amended Complaint, I expect that Defendants will pursue another Motion to Dismiss.
More later this week . . .
Last edited:
Thanks Aurora always appreciate your insight on this
Thanks Aurora. Looking forward to your analysis! Don’t you have an intern who can compare the docs and give us a summary?! 😂
The more you have to maneuver and posture, the weaker your case.
I'll save you some time on the highlighted portion. Litigated it on both sides. Conspiracy, like alter ego issues, are only theories of recovery not independent causes of action. The statute of limitations applicable to the substantive underlying tort also applies to the conspiracy theory. So the 1983 claims beyond two years are not saved by the conspiracy theory. I have not read the complaints but any ICRA claims would be barred by both statute of limitations and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Those claims should face Rule 11 motions.
Last edited:
This race hustling isn't real law. Its the use of legal process to commit extortion. The threat isn't the jury, a Southern District Jury (what will it take to find 8 people that don't like Iowa) will hate these Plaintiffs by the time the trial is over, its the character assassination that will happen in the press coverage where the plaintiff's lawyers and adherents can scream "racist" at the target of the extortion.
Rational people have got to start pushing back, if it is not already too late, against these insidious racial critiques that trivialize actual invidious discrimination.
Last edited:
A-freaking-men! Part of why we have such stupidity these days is that polite people have tolerated it. There needs to be push back for completely bogus crap like this. It consumes valuable resources AND reduces valid reaction to real offenses.
I'm back in KC this week for depositions but had to jump on the Southern District of Iowa's website to check on a case of mine and quickly checked the status of this case. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on Tuesday (1/25). I have not read it in depth but, according the Table of Contents, it re-asserts statute of limitations arguments for Counts I-VII for all but 3 of the players. It also raises various arguments with respect to why the claims asserted by the 3 players who were in the system within the two years prior to the filing of the lawsuit should be dismissed. It also re-asserts arguments that Count VIII does not state a plausible cause of action for breach of contract.
Plaintiffs' response brief is due within 14 days (2/8) unless they obtain an extension (which is fairly commonplace as we saw the last time).
Plaintiffs' response brief is due within 14 days (2/8) unless they obtain an extension (which is fairly commonplace as we saw the last time).
***In fairness, I have no idea what you two are even talking about. I am just proud I know AG stands for Attorney General and not some Dept of Agriculture.
Working for Microsoft, I was sorely confused by German companies as many of them have AG in their name, it's the abbreviation for Aktiengesellschaft.
Let us know on Monday Aurora, if anything happens please.
I've been burning it on all ends as it seems that all of my cases have become extremely active since 1/1/21 so I haven't had any time to mull over the latest Motion to Dismiss. I just checked the docket and it doesn't show any activity since the MTD was filed. The Response in due on Monday. Any request for extension of time must be filed by Monday so we can expect that something will be filed Monday (whether it be a Response Brief or a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response Brief). Due to e-filing, a party has until 11:59:59 to file a document to consider it filed on a particular day. I wouldn't expect a Motion for Extension of Time to be filed after business hours on Monday. It wouldn't shock me if a substantive Response Brief is filed after business hours.
I'll report to the Board after I see some activity.
Docket Entry #17 - Filed Today (2/8/21)
Consent Motion for Extension of Time to file Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Motion seeks an extension of 14 days. AG's office does not resist the request. There's no doubt in my mind that the court will grant the motion. Response brief will be due on February 22nd.
Language of the motion includes "Counsel for Plaintiffs have agreed to allow a reciprocal extension if one is requested by the Defendants" - which is not unusual. Under Local Rule 7, Reply briefs (which is what the defendants would file after receipt and review of the plaintiffs' Response brief) would be due 7 days after filing of the Response Brief. More likely than not, the AG's office would ask for the reciprocal relief and get a 14 day extension.
At this rate, the Response brief will be filed on 2/22. I'm anticipating that the AG's office will take a full 21 days to respond (3/15). At that point, Judge Rose can go in one of two directions. She can issue a written ruling on the merits of the written submissions or she can entertain oral argument and then issue a written ruling after consideration of both the written submissions and oral argument. IMO, it's a coin flip as to what she will do. Perhaps I'll have a better sense after reading the Plaintiffs' Response and the Defendants' Reply.
In any event, no new revelations to share today.
Docket #18 (entered 2/9/21) - Order entered granting the motion for extension of time (fully expected since it was a consent motion)
Last edited:
Would the legal system come to a crashing halt if people filed stuff early? Or does that happen and we just don’t know about it?
Could we have a game of lawsuit players versus those who side with Kirk? I'd pay to go watch.
I cannot deny that is sometimes true, especially in large firms with huge overhead and hundreds of mouths to feed. Most of the delay comes from three areas.
First, most people, including many lawyers, really have no idea of the complexity involved in litigation. Computers allow lawyers to do more research and access a body of law in a few hours that would have previously taken a team of lawyers days to accomplish. We have a duty to zealously advocate that means raising every argument that is reasonable and supported by an argument from existing law or for an extension or reversal of existing law. Plus, if you don't raise an issue at the district court level you cannot raise it on appeal, which self generates that research and writing.
Second, we have far too much law in the United States. I was admitted in 1985. The Code of Iowa is three times larger than it was in 85. The Iowa Code of Regulations is probably ten times larger. Every county has their codes, as does every city. Then we have the loss of judicial restraint so now we're generating some crazy case law all over the United States. Every day, somewhere, there are lawyers working in all those new areas and they have no more hours in a day than anyone else doing anything else.
And, let us all be honest; there really are not a lot of people that finish anything early. Certainly not any contractor I ever hired.
If motions to dismiss
Whats left if Defendants motions are granted. arguments heard for 3 players on 2 counts?
Voluminous discovery and then summary judgment motions. Fed courts are much tougher on summary judgment. I don't think any of these claims ever see a jury.
The University should counterclaim for abuse of process now and move for Rule 11 sanctions at the end of this case. The race hustlers need to know they face real personal risk in fabricating these preposterous lawsuits and smearing institutions and persons with false accusations of racism; or by making up new theories of racism that essentially attribute every bad occurrence in a minority's life to some inherent racism. This has to stop, but it won't at Iowa because if it weren't for the money the people running and teaching at Iowa would be pulling for this tiny pack snowflake race baiters.
The University should counterclaim for abuse of process now and move for Rule 11 sanctions at the end of this case. The race hustlers need to know they face real personal risk in fabricating these preposterous lawsuits and smearing institutions and persons with false accusations of racism; or by making up new theories of racism that essentially attribute every bad occurrence in a minority's life to some inherent racism. This has to stop, but it won't at Iowa because if it weren't for the money the people running and teaching at Iowa would be pulling for this tiny pack snowflake race baiters.
Last edited:
We went and visited all the historical stuff in Springfield, Illinois. I believe it might have been in the Old Capitol there but they had the equivalent of all laws that were then in force around 1850s when Lincoln was a lawyer and it only took up one small book shelf.
And your other point yes, it is amazing that car repairs take exactly the amount of time estimated. No one finishes early and under the estimate.
You previously wrote that you've been licensed to practice since 1985. I'm curious. What exactly in those 35 years of experience leads you to believe that what you've outlined in the above paragraph has any chance of success, let alone a reasonable chance of success? Also, what exactly leads you to believe that Judge Stephanie Rose would give credence to such arguments and grant the relief (Rule 11 sanctions) that you advocate? Or, moving it beyond the District Court level . . . what makes you think that a 8th Circuit panel would find that Judge Rose abused her discretion in denying a claim for Rule 11 sanctions?
Lawsuits like this won't stop because administrators and educators at the University of Iowa are secretly pulling for the plaintiffs? Seriously?
Last edited:
I think I'm pretty tight on the law here. What part do I not understand? If you can you answer that question without making a personal attack on me I'd invite the dialogue.
You're wrong about these players' cash grab being a result of liberal indoctrination at Iowa.
Why would you say that? Where did they get the idea that providing realistic academic and career advice to a player is racist. That sounds right out of black studies text books. If the players brought these attitudes with them then the University reinforced these subjectively silly ideas of racism. Like the two examples I used above.
Which "black studies" textbook, exactly? Which specific texts from specific "black studies" textbooks that Akrum Wadley was required to (and verifiably did) read explicitly taught him that his failure to thrive in the NFL means KF is racist?
No, you're just wildly speculating this must be liberals' fault because you think everything bad that happens is liberals' fault because you have the intellectual maturity of a child. Stick to the procedural stuff and stop talking out of your ass you ignorant redhat.
So I was right, you couldn't articulate your claim you could just call names and engage in political slurs. So sad.
Someone is teaching young black people that every bad outcome is the result of racism because that is the premise of post modern racial critique. You don't even dispute that conclusion.. Of course not every black kid buys into such nonsense and certainly not every black parent teaches it but that is the core educational function in most American schools. You know, the places, like Iowa, where wearing a Trump hat will get you stopped by campus security have a very one dimensional curriculum.
So who taught the kid that thinks getting more serious punishment for being arrested for OWI than for possession of liquor in the dorms is prompted by racism. That is just idiotic. A lot of kids arrive on campus completely unaware of the time commitment of football and a lot have no idea how that effects the curriculum they can pursue. Is it not possible that the claim of racism was really just providing good career and academic advice.
So where did those kids learn that the two examples I used above if not at Iowa. Can you explain that without name calling?
No, you have it backwards. YOU can't articulate your claim. You haven't provided a shred of support for the specific accusation you're leveling. And I could do this without calling names but I choose not to because people like you need to be firmly reminded that you suck.
Oh bullshit.
Oh my god, how are you a lawyer? You're the one accusing university faculty of brainwashing these specific players. You don't just get to do that and say "Now prove they didn't or I'm right!" YOU'RE the one who has to put up or shut up. YOU'RE the one who has to explain how specific courses taken at Iowa by these specific players affected them. You'd think someone who fancies himself a lawyer would have a better grasp of burden of proof.
Like most, they probably get their ideas from their parents and friends. This doesn’t seem like rocket science.
- Status
