Jump to content
  • North Texas vs. UTEP

    • Days
    • Hours
    • Minutes
    • Seconds

Marshall files lawsuit against C-USA


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, bstnsportsfan3 said:

Judy going to lose

What does that mean?  Judy only represents the views of her bosses. 

CUSA it's seems to me has the contract and the upper hand.   The issue maybe does CUSA have the funds to engage in a court battle. 

I think this is another ploy to aid in Marshall's desired exit strategy, which is to pay as little as possible. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

What does that mean?  Judy only represents the views of her bosses. 

CUSA it's seems to me has the contract and the upper hand.   The issue maybe does CUSA have the funds to engage in a court battle. 

I think this is another ploy to aid in Marshall's desired exit strategy, which is to pay as little as possible. 

 

It means that CUSA will lose. These lawsuits are being fought in the state of each university and the universities have sovereign immunity in there own states which makes it impossible for CUSA to win these law suites (yes I am saying plural because I except odu and southern Miss to file suits as well)

  • Upvote 5
  • Skeptical Eagle 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, bstnsportsfan3 said:

It means that CUSA will lose. These lawsuits are being fought in the state of each university and the universities have sovereign immunity in there own states which makes it impossible for CUSA to win these law suites (yes I am saying plural because I except odu and southern Miss to file suits as well)

Servant-Leadership-Workplace-Cultivate-F

The SBC3 had it when they came to the bargaining table.

Judy does not.

And before some of y'all reiterate that the real bosses are the University presidents...   Again, do you honestly think they concern themselves with this kind of foresight?   What are they paying Judy for?

  • Upvote 3
  • Lovely Take 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bstnsportsfan3 said:

It means that CUSA will lose. These lawsuits are being fought in the state of each university and the universities have sovereign immunity in there own states which makes it impossible for CUSA to win these law suites (yes I am saying plural because I except odu and southern Miss to file suits as well)

I doubt sovereign immunity applies.  That doctrine is to protect individuals from being sued when acting on the behalf of the state within that state.  

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

I doubt sovereign immunity applies.  That doctrine is to protect individuals from being sued when acting on the behalf of the state within that state.  

 

It does apply. Universities have sovereign immunity in the state they reside 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bstnsportsfan3 said:

It does apply. Universities have sovereign immunity in the state they reside 

I'm no legal expert, but this would imply that Marshall University is part of the government of West Virginia as I thought sovereign immunity applied to the government not being sued without the consent of the government.  I realize it's state supported, but does that make it part of the state government?

If they really have sovereign immunity then what do they care about and why would they bother entering into a legal dispute?  They could do whatever they wanted to without worrying about any legal ramifications to their actions.

Does interstate commerce come into play here?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, keith said:

I'm no legal expert, but this would imply that Marshall University is part of the government of West Virginia as I thought sovereign immunity applied to the government not being sued without the consent of the government.  I realize it's state supported, but does that make it part of the state government?

If they really have sovereign immunity then what do they care about and why would they bother entering into a legal dispute?  They could do whatever they wanted to without worrying about any legal ramifications to their actions.

Does interstate commerce come into play here?

 

A State or one of its subsidiaries can invoke sovereign immunity (unless the case involves certain Constitutional rights, which wouldn't apply here).  A public school is considered a state subsidiary.  Texas A&M used immunity not too long ago to fend off angry Texas Wesleyan law school alumni.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, keith said:

I'm no legal expert, but this would imply that Marshall University is part of the government of West Virginia as I thought sovereign immunity applied to the government not being sued without the consent of the government.  I realize it's state supported, but does that make it part of the state government?

Federal courts have ruled this very thing multiple times. State Universities are a part of the state government and have sovereign immunity. UT-Austin uses it every 3 days or so. See it a BUNCH when it comes to patents and contract disputes.

It's why Leach couldn't sue Texas Tech.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TripleGrad said:

 

A State or one of its subsidiaries can invoke sovereign immunity (unless the case involves certain Constitutional rights, which wouldn't apply here).  A public school is considered a state subsidiary.  Texas A&M used immunity not too long ago to fend off angry Texas Wesleyan law school alumni.

 

36 minutes ago, Monkeypox said:

Federal courts have ruled this very thing multiple times. State Universities are a part of the state government and have sovereign immunity. UT-Austin uses it every 3 days or so. See it a BUNCH when it comes to patents and contract disputes.

It's why Leach couldn't sue Texas Tech.

Thanks.  Then I don't get why any of the three care one way or another what C-USA says or does.  It seems they can just leave when they want to, not worry about any sort of exit fees and/or legal action that C-USA may or may not take.  That seems like the path of least resistance.  All the posturing and back and forth public squabbling is all theatre.  What am I missing?  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't find the article I read directly about Marshall's situation, but I found this article about when the University of West Virginia sued the Big East because they wanted out of the Big East Conference at the end of the then current academic year. It explains  or at least reverences many relevant points about Marshall and CUSA including why starting the suit in West Virginia courts forces the entire process to happen in West Virginia courts. It also touches on why the case couldn't then move to Federal court. West Virginia did leave the Big East at the end of the academic year in question. 

https://www.vuhoops.com/2011/11/01/wvu-sues-the-big-east

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see if I got this so far.  

1.  Marshall wants to negotiate (I assume directly with C-USA) a settlement that would allow it to leave the conference early and therefore prevent some future lawsuit.  However, due to the aforementioned sovereign immunity, there's really no risk to them from such a lawsuit other than I guess the cost of going through the process.

2.  C-USA said it's not interested in bilateral negotiation but would submit to and accept arbitration by a third-party to settle the disagreement.  This is the first I've heard that C-USA suggested arbitration.  

3.  Marshall doesn't want to put it's fate in the hands of a 3rd-party and presumably would be against the state constitution of West Virginia anyway.  So, in response, Marshall has filed suit to prevent entering into arbitration.  I guess this suggests that Marshall isn't confident that arbitration would come out in its favor.

I don't see where Marshall faces immediate and irreparable injury by staying in the conference another academic year.  It will be the exact same conference makeup it has been a part of for many years.  I would understand it if a bunch of other members were leaving and the conference was going to be in tatters next year, but it's not.  I think part of the WVU case was that the conference they wanted out of was no longer a viable conference, but that's not the case with C-USA.

To me this all amounts to conference membership/agreements/by-laws or whatever are not worth the paper they are written on.  These types of situations just confirm that politicians and lawyers ruin absolutely everything they touch. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 8:51 PM, GrandGreen said:

I doubt sovereign immunity applies.  That doctrine is to protect individuals from being sued when acting on the behalf of the state within that state.  

 

No. Sovereign immunity derives from the English common law principle that the King (or Queen) could not be sued in their own courts.

In US jurisprudence it means you cannot sue the state nor it’s agencies without their consent. You are thinking of qualified immunity which applies to the actions of individuals.

Basically the only way around sovereign immunity is a 1983 lawsuit where you allege a state actor violated your civil rights while acting under color of state law.

If a state employee runs over you in a state owned car while traveling to deliver copy paper to a branch office and kills you, your estate can sue for depriving you of your right to live while performing a state action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, keith said:

I'm no legal expert, but this would imply that Marshall University is part of the government of West Virginia as I thought sovereign immunity applied to the government not being sued without the consent of the government.  I realize it's state supported, but does that make it part of the state government?

If they really have sovereign immunity then what do they care about and why would they bother entering into a legal dispute?  They could do whatever they wanted to without worrying about any legal ramifications to their actions.

Does interstate commerce come into play here?

I don’t know precisely how West Virginia operates their colleges but most likely:

The state passed a law establishing the school

The state appropriates funds each year for its operation.

Some state actor (likely the Governor) is charged with appointing the members of a governing board that hires a chief executive for the school. The board approves an operating budget, major contracts, and approves major hires and promotions.

Absolutely an agency of the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, keith said:

 

Thanks.  Then I don't get why any of the three care one way or another what C-USA says or does.  It seems they can just leave when they want to, not worry about any sort of exit fees and/or legal action that C-USA may or may not take.  That seems like the path of least resistance.  All the posturing and back and forth public squabbling is all theatre.  What am I missing?  

Because they know they are liable for damages caused. If TV doesn’t cut CDOA’s payment, then there may be no damages at all. If the payment is cut, then there are damages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Arkstfan said:

I don’t know precisely how West Virginia operates their colleges but most likely:

The state passed a law establishing the school

The state appropriates funds each year for its operation.

Some state actor (likely the Governor) is charged with appointing the members of a governing board that hires a chief executive for the school. The board approves an operating budget, major contracts, and approves major hires and promotions.

Absolutely an agency of the state.

I vote/elect/employ my state government.  My taxes pay and fund what the government does.  A government in the U.S. is (or so I’m told) of and by the people.  I am the government, therefor I have sovereign immunity.  I love it!  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

Because they know they are liable for damages caused. If TV doesn’t cut CDOA’s payment, then there may be no damages at all. If the payment is cut, then there are damages.

With all the truckloads of cash they are going to get by joining the SBC a year early, they shouldn't have any problem paying the damages (or at least come out ahead or at worst breakeven...hopefully they've already done the math).  One way or another it's going to come down to dollars.  So again, I don't get it.  They have immunity, just ignore whatever C-USA has to say, flip them the bird, tell the conference to pound sand or whatever and move on.  Maybe it is the Sun Belt who is asking for the three to make a clean break without all the drama before they want to get involved.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.