Hearing News?

[Headlinesman]

Again, guys, please let me caution you: you absolutely CANNOT read anything more into what the Judge has said, than what the Judge has said.  Courts work with facts and the law, not innuendos.  I can assure you that it is not Judge Yeakel's custom to place hidden messages between the lines.  As many of you have said, this is far from over, so please be constrained in your exuberance.

[Arbitrator]

I agree, this thing is far from over. Celebrate if you wish, but its just delaying the inevitable as far as I'm concerned. Some of you who aren't registered, might get a game now, but so will I either way! The end is near. Just might take a little longer.

 

Hey,  Ornery! Isn't this what you have been saying would come about way back in July? August? September? October? And it still hasn't quite come to fruition? Sure hope you can find someone else to either celebrate or, hopefully commiserate with you besides the  Good UIL Dr. and his  Strutting Simien!         

Yeah,  Nostradumbus!: You have one heck of a prediction record! 

[DallasLJ]

Again, guys, please let me caution you: you absolutely CANNOT read anything more into what the Judge has said, than what the Judge has said.  Courts work with facts and the law, not innuendos.  I can assure you that it is not Judge Yeakel's custom to place hidden messages between the lines.  As many of you have said, this is far from over, so please be constrained in your exuberance.

  Not sure what you are saying here.  Of course there is reason for TASO to be excited and they can read something into this.  In granting TASO's injunction, the court had to find TASO is likely to win at trial -- it is one of the elements in granting injunctions.  If the court denies the UIL's motions to dismiss, the injunction stays in place until trial (24-36 months down the road).  No more hearings on this issue.  And, TASO gets to start taking the depositions of the UIL, the superintendents, etc. to have them explain the need for these changes in 1204 and how and why they came about.  That should prove very interesting.

[TXMike]

UIL could likely get TASO to drop the action by a simple modification to the 1204 that puts back the "right" of schools to use uil OR taso officials. 

[NTXRef]

I guess I missed this earlier, but what is the signicance of having the 4 Superintendants on the complaint?  Did they have particular action against TASO or in support of UIL that warrented this?

[DallasLJ]

I guess I missed this earlier, but what is the signicance of having the 4 Superintendants on the complaint?  Did they have particular action against TASO or in support of UIL that warrented this?

  The UIL complained in one of its motions to dismiss that TASO failed to sue the decision makers -- so, TASO amended the complaint to add all the superintendents on the Legislative Council.  The UIL asked for it, and TASO gave it to 'em.

[Cooter]

In reading the Order Granting Preliminary Injunction - it is very evident that TASO won and UIL lost.  Congratulations to TASO, their new leadership and especially their attorneys.  Now maybe we can get on with playing football and not politics.  Good luck to those with playoff games this week - my crew didn't get one but we were very excited to have worked some early.  Have a great day.
 

[rickref]

I agree more with DallasLJ on this. We simply have won an injunction at this time. All it takes is a judge granting dismissal to the UIL and things will not be good. This is simply like last year a early victory. We need to wait and see on the rest and as always take thsi one step at a time.

[Arbitrator]

 


I really feel that all of us under the TASO banner should be feeling "cautiously optimistic" at this particular point in time!   

[TxJim]

I agree more with DallasLJ on this. We simply have won an injunction at this time. All it takes is a judge granting dismissal to the UIL and things will not be good. This is simply like last year a early victory. We need to wait and see on the rest and as always take thsi one step at a time.

It’s beyond that now. The judge is not going to a summary judgment (ruling on UIL’s motions) without discovery taking place.  Discovery will hurt UIL.  It's getting too late to just say that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant (UIL) is entitled to judgment (dismiss) as a matter of law.

A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

You should feel cautiously optimistic.  As Dallas LJ says, let the wheels of justice grind on UIL. 

Discovery is a wonderful thing. 

[WABill]

  Not sure what you are saying here.  Of course there is reason for TASO to be excited and they can read something into this.  In granting TASO's injunction, the court had to find TASO is likely to win at trial -- it is one of the elements in granting injunctions.  If the court denies the UIL's motions to dismiss, the injunction stays in place until trial (24-36 months down the road).  No more hearings on this issue.  And, TASO gets to start taking the depositions of the UIL, the superintendents, etc. to have them explain the need for these changes in 1204 and how and why they came about.  That should prove very interesting.

I would trust the original poster and his cautionary tale - it comes from a very credible source.  While I am as anti-uil (and their mouthpieces) as they come, until the ornery bird is singing, it ain't over till its over.  TASO has won yet again another round against the uil, but I am still cautious of a ornery, I mean sucker, punch tactic.

[WABill]

        Federal Judge’s Action Puts Dec. 1 Registration Deadline On Hold
               No Requirement, At This Time, For Any Texas Sports Official to Register with UIL
 
RICHARDSON, Texas – Michael Fitch, executive director of the Texas Association of Sports Officials (TASO), today issued the following statement after Federal District Judge Lee Yeakel granted a limited preliminary injunction in Austin against the University Interscholastic League’s attempt to register Texas sports officials.
 
“The long and short of Judge Yeakel’s decision today means the arbitrary December 1 deadline for sports officials to register with the University Interscholastic League is indefinitely suspended. The most important outcome of today’s ruling is that there is absolutely no reason or requirement for any Texas sports official to register with the UIL by that date.”
 
“Also of note is that this is the third court that has granted injunctive relief in favor of TASO. The Austin District Court, Austin Court of Appeals, and now a Federal Judge have all seen fit to enjoin the UIL on the merits of our case.   The only way that the UIL has stayed alive in these proceedings is largely through procedural gamesmanship of our legal system.”   
 
“We are not, however, out of the woods. Judge Yeakel has yet to rule on the UIL’s motion to dismiss TASO’s lawsuit against it. We remain hopeful Judge Yeakel will recognize that students, parents and school district officials are better served by an independent sports officiating organization like TASO than they are by a heavy-handed bureaucratic system. This has been true for decades and it remains true today.”

[TxSkyBolt]

It’s beyond that now. The judge is not going to a summary judgment (ruling on UIL’s motions) without discovery taking place.  Discovery will hurt UIL.  It's getting too late to just say that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant (UIL) is entitled to judgment (dismiss) as a matter of law.

A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

You should feel cautiously optimistic.  As Dallas LJ says, let the wheels of justice grind on UIL. 

Discovery is a wonderful thing. 

Must have slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.....

[TxJim]

Must have slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.....

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet. 

[Headlinesman]

You might as well!  TxMike and TEXDOC do it all the time!!

In all seriousness, I wish one of our posters, who actually HAS been to law school, would venture out and render an opinion on what's really going on.

[DallasLJ]

You might as well!  TxMike and TEXDOC do it all the time!!

In all seriousness, I wish one of our posters, who actually HAS been to law school, would venture out and render an opinion on what's really going on.

  That would be my posts there Old.

[Headlinesman]

Thanks, DLJ!

[Joe Stack]

In all seriousness, I wish one of our posters, who actually HAS been to law school, would venture out and render an opinion on what's really going on.

DallasLJ went to law school. Graduated top of his class from Bayou Redneck Southeastern (or was it Southwestern??) School of Law.

Seriously, as someone else who went (and one first year class of federal civil procedure doesn't really provide anyone sufficient information; years of practice does), I tend to agree with what he said. The only caveat I read in the order was that the judge left wide open the possibility that this won't get to the Summary Judgment stage. In federal court, there is a preliminary stage of what is called 12(b)(6) which essentially is a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The very simple example is I sue you for posting on this message board. Well, that's not a viable cause of action. In practice, its never that simple. Issues of standing, can the plaintiff maintain a claim if their petition is taken at face value, and many technical issues I won't get into detail here. I've spent many hours drafting and responding to 12b6 motions, responses, and replys, and have seen judges do a lot of interesting things. Once the 12b6 stage is passed, then we get to the Summary Judgment stage which, as stated above, involves genuine issues of material fact. In other words, if there is no fact issues to decide, the judge can rule based on the law. Either side may present a motion for summary judgment.

What I'm wondering is why is this still in federal court? Has TASO abandoned a motion to remand? The judge hinted at one point he wasn't sure there was federal jurisdiction here and I'm wondering how there is myself.

[DallasLJ]

DallasLJ went to law school. Graduated top of his class from Bayou Redneck Southeastern (or was it Southwestern??) School of Law.

Seriously, as someone else who went (and one first year class of federal civil procedure doesn't really provide anyone sufficient information; years of practice does), I tend to agree with what he said. The only caveat I read in the order was that the judge left wide open the possibility that this won't get to the Summary Judgment stage. In federal court, there is a preliminary stage of what is called 12(b)(6) which essentially is a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The very simple example is I sue you for posting on this message board. Well, that's not a viable cause of action. In practice, its never that simple. Issues of standing, can the plaintiff maintain a claim if their petition is taken at face value, and many technical issues I won't get into detail here. I've spent many hours drafting and responding to 12b6 motions, responses, and replys, and have seen judges do a lot of interesting things. Once the 12b6 stage is passed, then we get to the Summary Judgment stage which, as stated above, involves genuine issues of material fact. In other words, if there is no fact issues to decide, the judge can rule based on the law. Either side may present a motion for summary judgment.

What I'm wondering is why is this still in federal court? Has TASO abandoned a motion to remand? The judge hinted at one point he wasn't sure there was federal jurisdiction here and I'm wondering how there is myself.

  Joe, where do you practice?  I am been doing the law thing for 20+ years trying cases just like this one.  I also spent the first 2 years as a federal court law clerk (meaning I worked for a federal judge handling cases like this all the time).

  Joe is right that we are not out of the words.  The UIL's motions to dismiss are the 12(b)(6) variety which challenge whether TASO can even bring these claims regardless of facts.  However, having looked at the motions, I tend to like TASOs position better.  And, as I have said, if we survive the motions to dismiss, I think the UIL's proposal to register is "toast."  That is a legal term.

[Arbitrator]

 

I thought that the temporary orders from the Federal Judge precluded the UIL from even being able to register folks until after he had reached a decision. If you go to their website, it is still painfully obvious that the "free" UIL registration process is still flourishing. Legal Eagles: Am I reading those orders wrong?   

[TXMike]

Looks like all it does is delay implementation of new 1204.uil can register but cannot preclude schools from using taso-only refs

[Arbitrator]

 

Is it widely anticipated that a ruling of some kind might possibly filter down from the presiding Austin Federal Judge during the course of this week, or could this thing quite possibly stretch out beyond the Week 6 UIL Championship Games?