The procedural issues; proper parties, jurisdiction, and venue will take some time and money to sort out. UK is contesting Gillispie on all three.   Critics of the US Civil Justice System are  right about the process being very time consuming, and very expensive for UK. I suspect that Gillispie’s lawyer may be handling this case on a contingency fee basis, whereas UK must pay as they go.

Proper Party:

Gillispie sued the UKAA, and the counter position is that the proper defendant is not the UKAA but UK. That could raise issues of sovereign immunity, but on contract claims, the sovereign immunity defense probably will fail. One procedural strategy that Gillispie has not used thus far is to expand the list of named defendants to include personal actions against Mitch Barnhart, Lee Todd, and perhaps the Chairman of the UK and UKAA Boards. However, if he should lose on the Sovereign Immunity question, what for that to happen quickly thereafter because State employees are not protected by the Sovereign Immunity. If the proper party is UK, then Gillispie will simply refile, and the arguments on jurisdiction and venue will proceed.

Jurisdiction:

Gillispie filed in Federal District Court in Texas. For Federal District Court to have jurisdiction, the parties [Gillispie and UK or UKAA] must be completely diverse, not from the same state. UK will argue that diversity does not exist because Gillispie establshed Kentucky residency, and is a resident of Kentucky when he filed the suit. Gillispie will argue that he established Texas residency prior to filing the suit in Texas. This is critical to UK in my view because if Gillispie prevails on diversity, the case will remain in Federal court instead of state court in Kentucky.

Venue:

Which court should hear the case, once jurisdiction has been established. Even if Gillispie wins on the diversity argument, he will have a very tough time prevailing on venue, and the case will be moved back to Federal District Court in Kentucky. His argument for Texas is that the contract was formed in Texas. That is a good argument, but the UK argument is that the events, witnesses, etc. are located in Kentucky. I am not sure he wins on the contract formation location, but even if he does, I do not believe that factor will outweigh the location of the witnesses, and judicial efficiency hearing the matter in Kentucky will provide. Of course, if Gillispie loses on the jurisdiction question, then the case will be either in Franklin Circuit Court [if UK is the defendant] or Fayette Circuit Court [if UKAA is the defendant]

General Observations:

I fail to understand how this lawsuit can possibly be in the long term, or immediate term interests of UK Basketball. They have little to gain, and much to lose by persisting with the litigation. Unless the UK position is pristine, they are making yet another in a series of huge strategic and tactical errors, and it remains my belief that this course of action is designed to protect Mitch Barnhart, and no other reason.

Gillispie on the other hand must persist because without judicial vindication, his coaching career is finished because he is already condemned in the court of public opinion, he is already damaged goods. His only chance is to sue and win. Sue and lose, he is really no worse off than he is now. To walk away now, he has been a big time loser.

[ad#Google Adsense]