Does the video that's out there of Deion Sanders and the "Colorado Way" hurt the plaintiffs in this case?
Former Players v. Football Program *** Thread
- Thread starter AuroraHawk
- Start date
- Status
So, anything new regarding the lawsuit?
Actual forum lawyers are encouraged to reply.
Actual forum lawyers are encouraged to reply.
The Colorado Way is unlikely to affect the case. I think even admitting the issue would be problematic for either side. Relevance is broadly defined for purposes of admission, but this seems highly unlikely to meet even that threshold for admission. The prejudicial impact of the testimony (it's highly exciting) would probably be found to exceed the probative value (minimal at best). Neon Deion's celebrity would provide even more complications that would or at least might increase the prejudicial nature of the testimony.
Aurora has kind of monitored the docket. I assume his lack of comment means nothing has been filed since the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs may have a very difficult time successfully resisting the summary judgments as discussed above. Plaintiffs' deposition testimony is catastrophically bad.
Aurora has kind of monitored the docket. I assume his lack of comment means nothing has been filed since the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs may have a very difficult time successfully resisting the summary judgments as discussed above. Plaintiffs' deposition testimony is catastrophically bad.
Last edited:
Thanks for the update.
Just after the assistant coach hiring cycle ends...how sh*tty.
Is Rob Howe going to tweet and write about this as much as he did the original filing/complaints?
They are dismissing without prejudice so as to preserve the possibility of refiling. I opine Plaintiffs' counsel knew they could not possibly win against the individual defendants. Some of Plaintiffs claims might limit liability to the employer. No one drops defendants like these unless they know they cannot win.
Plaintiffs' counsel also knew they would not survive summary judgment. Save a little face and hope that some development revives their claims. Most of the claims are now beyond the statute of limitations so they need something like a miracle.
This the first sign of inevitable surrender. I would suggest not paying them a dime and allowing them to dismiss without Rule 11 sanctions. It certainly appears that there was never a good faith factual basis for the claims raised in the Complaint.
Plaintiffs' counsel also knew they would not survive summary judgment. Save a little face and hope that some development revives their claims. Most of the claims are now beyond the statute of limitations so they need something like a miracle.
This the first sign of inevitable surrender. I would suggest not paying them a dime and allowing them to dismiss without Rule 11 sanctions. It certainly appears that there was never a good faith factual basis for the claims raised in the Complaint.
Last edited:
Counter sue for damages to which there are many. These young men should have to take responsibility for their lies and embellishments.
I get the sentiment, but just bring more unwanted publicity on both the university and the individuals. Although if I were one of the individuals in the case who had to have this hanging over my head for years, I would be very upset.
At this point Coach Doyle has nothing to lose, he’s already lost pretty much everything in regards to his reputation and name. I understand he got a nice settlement from the university but he’s basically unhirable in a field he was at one time the gold standard of. I would absolutely sue for defamation if I were him.
First step in Barta settling I'd guess
So is it Iowa's talent or Iowa's coaching staff that's been beating your teams ass at about a 90% clip the last 8 years?
Not up to Barta. If there is any kind of settlement it would come from University/BoR Counsel.
Because clown fan says so. You mean settle like crybaby Pollard did when BF was accused of being a racist by a isu women’s basketball player?
I am sure you will easily be able to explain how one case counts and the other doesn’t. Just how clown fans roll. Ignore whatever reality trashes their feeble arguments.
This is a very typical civil suit action to achieve a settlement with the party with the deepest pockets. The goal is to name everyone that may share in the responsibility of any accused wrongdoing. When the defendants are ready to settle, you dismiss all parties "without prejudice" to mediate a settlement with a single party. The plaintiff can always re-file against the dismissed parties (except Wallace dismissed with prejudice). It normally means nothing in relation to guilt. If I was plaintiff attorney, this would be my move. Nothing to do with whether or not KF, BF, or GB is guilty, simply the goal is to get as much compensation for the plaintiff as possible.
True in a lot of civil actions.
Claiming institutional racism exists in the University and the BOR however is tough to prove when many of the plaintiffs recanted their initial claims during their depositions. The University and BOR should see it through.
One of the problems with seeing it through is that the claims of racism will be brought to the forefront and it becomes full on scorched earth for the defendant. There are certain claims that are she said/he said type arguments that are very damaging to reputations that will escalate if this goes full on trial. Sometimes it is very damaging to defendants when you attempt to fight to the finish line.
I disagree, if you think you’re working towards a settlement, you use the threat of a public trial to your leverage. This is waiving the white flag of surrender, they can’t make a case or they would continue to pursue it.
KF, BF, and GB will not be footing the bill on a settlement. During a settlement negotiation I would remove all non-decision making parties. Work to strike a deal, with still having the threat of a public trial. If the negotiation doesn't work, you simply re-file against the coaches and move forward. The threat of a public trial is still there. I presume there is some sort of indication from the defendants (UofI) in a willingness to settle out of court. Likely a mediation next. Obviously just speculation on my part.
Time to run away and hide 515clowns? Probably best to ignore my question about crybaby Pollard.
Careful...this kind of talk can get you banned.
Understand the publicity, but at some point someone needs to stand up and say "enough". This sort of BS needs to stop and it won't until the defending party pushes back. Heck, I would argue the publicity of saying "we're not only not guilty, but we're not putting up with the lies".
No he is gonna scream about his childhood again.
So it says still against U of I and BOR. What is the claim against those entities? Because the coaches were employees of those entities? It seems like those two entities would be where the real $ is at, but don't they fight it to the bloody end?
Attorneys will tell you never to do that in public. You wait and do that in the legal process.
All points are spot on.
For us lawyer geeks who regularly practice in federal court, there is some interesting procedural machinations at play.
The easy one? The motion to dismiss Doyle without prejudice has already been granted. Under Federal Rule 41, a party can voluntarily dismiss without prejudice (meaning the door remains ajar to a future filing) after a defendant has answered or filed a motion for summary judgment so long as the defendant consents. Doyle previously answered and filed a MSJ. However, Doyle consented and Judge Rose entered an Order this morning dismissing Doyle without prejudice.
The harder one? Like Doyle, Brian Ferentz has a motion for summary judgment pending but, unlike Doyle, Brian did not consent to the dismissal without prejudice. Brian's counsel can request that the Court rule on the merits of his motion as opposed to Judge Rose simply dismissing the case without prejudice. This is a strategy employed by defendants who believe that they have a strong argument on the merits and want the Court to rule on the merits with the hope that the Court dismisses the case/enters judgment in favor of the defendant and closes the door on any future filing. I'd anticipate that Brian's counsel will file some sort of resistance within the next 14 days after which the Court will exercise its discretion as to whether it will simply enter a dismissal without prejudice or entertain the merits of Brian's motion for summary judgment.
As for Barta and K. Ferentz, Rule 41 allows for a notice of dismissal without prejudice - as a matter of right - "before the [defendant] serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The filings pertaining to Barta and K. Ferentz simply identify that plaintiffs are dismissing the claims without prejudice. I believe that I wrote earlier (it's admittedly been a while - I've been prepping for two multi-week out of state trials) that Barta and K. Ferentz filed Motions to Dismiss instead of filing an Answer. A motion to dismiss is not a motion for summary judgment. Thus, under Rule 41, plaintiffs should have the right to simply dismiss Barta and K. Ferentz without prejudice without seeking and obtaining their consent. It's interesting because different venues have different rules. For example, in Illinois state court, any dispositive motion (including a motion to dismiss) can be used to block a voluntary dismissal.
Then there is the issue of Rule 41(a)(B) which provides that "if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal or state court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits" - a dismissal with prejudice. As you will recall, both K. Ferentz and Barta were dismissed earlier in the lawsuit. However, they were involuntarily dismissed by the Court because Plaintiff's Amended Complaint failed to state a cause of action. They were not voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff. Thus, even though Barta and K. Ferentz were dismissed earlier in the case, the door remains ajar for Plaintiff's counsel to reinitiate claims is desired.
Fully agree with the Sleeping Dog . . . I don't believe that the claims against Barta, K. Ferentz or Doyle will ever be re-filed. I'll be curious to watch and see how the Court treats Brian's objection. Certainly the path of least resistance is to simply grant the motion and, if Plaintiffs re-file, Brian can renew the motion. If I had to bet, I'm anticipating that the Court will go down that road as opposed to ruling on the merits of Brian's motion.
What we also don't know is if Kirk and/or Brian ever sat for depositions. I don't believe that they did. That is the potential "wild card" for them potentially being added back into the case.
As for the person suggesting a countersuit for abuse of process . . . IMO, that would be dead in the water from the start. Complete waste of time and $$$.
Although the lawsuit remains pending, I think that it is fair to write at this point that many of Solomon-Simmons' early proclamations have not come to fruition. Far from over but this is certainly a "pro-defense" development.
Last edited:
I’m sure he’ll get right on it after his coffee.
What ever came out of the racism accusations against ISU women's bball coach Fennelly? He was accused of saying far worse than Kirk himself was......just luckier that it came out a few years earlier. Always cracks me up when Clown fans start talking sh&t about this lawsuit.
Not.
A.
Clue.
On 2/21/23 and 2/23/23, the Court presided over a 30 minute and 14 minute, respectively, status hearings. The defendants' filed agenda indicated that the hearing would cover (a) status of pending motions and (b) setting a new trial date.
No new trial date was set.
Lots of pending motions were rendered moot by the voluntary dismissals.
Interestingly, the transcripts of both hearings will be filed under seal. The parties apparently don't want a public record of what was discussed.
No trial date has been set and I don't see any future status hearing dates on the docket.
Understood. My comment about saying it was to mean symbolically saying it by using the civil trial process to countersue.
Thanks again Aurora. Your expertise and guidance through this thread have been enlightening.
Anybody follow any of the parties (former players) on social media? If any are on there commenting, which I am sure they have been advised to not do, what have been the comments by them publicly in recent months?
They dismissed Fennelly from the suit and then ISU settled for $60k. Seems that this case is going down that road too.
- Status
