Oh... how I love Civil Procedure! Seriously! I really do!

UK asks judge to move or dismiss Gillispie suit

Posted using ShareThis

Ok, perhaps I am the most bizarre person on the planet. However, the most dreaded law school course of all time happens to be, well, perhaps my favorite. The federal rules of civil procedure... how wonderful they are! So, here's the deal, Gillispie is pissed he got fired by UK. So, he decides to sue them for breach of contract for the remaining money he claims he's owed under a $6 million contract. So Gillispie's attorney, undoubtedly out of convenience to the plaintiff (Gillispie), tells him to file suit in Texas rather than in Kentucky because, let's face it, who wants to go to Kentucky?! On top of the unappealing thought of voluntarily inducing trial in Kentucky, there is of course the additional cost of suing in Kentucky Gillispie would have to incur if he sued there for travel expenses, additional Kentucky counsel, etc.

All in all, not a bad move. Worst case scenario the TX court agrees with UK and dismisses the case for lack of personal jurisdiction and Gillispie can refile in Kentucky. No harm, no foul. Except, here's where it gets tricky. UK claims that they never had a contract with Gillispie that could be breached. Moreover, Gillispie didn't sue UK but the UK Athletic Association who claims that they neither hired nor paid Gillispie.

As a preliminary matter, the question of whether UK athletic association can be subject to personal jurisdiction in TX court depends on several issues: (1) whether they waive their objection by failing to timely raise it; or (2) whether they derive substantial revenue or regularly conducts business within the state of TX. Assuming the athletic association timely and properly raised their objection to the jurisdiction of the TX court, the question becomes whether the athletic association conducts business or makes money in TX.

As a preliminary matter, no SEC teams are located in TX so ticket revenue is out of the question. However, under the NCAA tournament structure, athletic associations hypothetically get money from every state in the nation if the participate in post season play which awards them prize money derived from ticket sales in TX, aka at TX schools that are members of the NCAA. It would be foreseeable that the athletic association could be subject to jurisdiction in TX if they ever recruited athletes in TX. It would be foreseeable that the athletic association would be subject to jurisdiction in the TX court if they ever competed in invitational sporting events in TX. While I haven't read the court documents yet and while I haven't studied the rosters and schedules of each and every revenue earning team at UK, I suspect that the athletic association should reasonably foresee being sued in TX if only because of it's proximity to the SEC region.

For example, each and every Big 10 team that competes in the Rose Bowl, aka "The Big Ten Bowl" should foresee being sued in California despite the fact that no Big 10 team is situation in CA. The reason: the teams competing in the game receive substantial revenue in ticket sales from their participation in the state of CA.

Now... UK (not the athletic association) has filed suit in Kentucky. You have to love the irony that in this sports contract dispute we have a so-called "race" to file! Technically Gillispie won because he filed first in the jurisdiction of his choice. However, even if there is personal jurisdiction, the athletic association argues the case should be dismissed because they were never in privity of contract with Gillispie (i.e. they didn't have an agreement with him), but rather UK did. On the other hand, UK claims there wasn't a contract at all... which is a separate can of worms known as the Statute of Frauds.

But, basically, who is dumb enough to believe UK and Gillispie would agree to a $6 million deal orally. Better yet, is it possible that Gillispie is so stupid he did not demand a signed contract for a $6 million deal? Now, I may be going out on a limb here but you have to be incompetent at life to allow such an egregious oversight when it comes to your $6 million. Shit, even Jessica Simpson gets paid and she doesn't know the difference between tuna fish and chicken! So, let us assume that Gillispie is not imcompetent at life. We can then imply that UK is lying when they claim there is no signed contract and, of course, that they are experiencing fantastical self-serving thoughts when they characterize the "Memorandum of Understanding" as anything other than a contract.

And, this folks, is good lawyering! Even before they fired Gillispie, UK started "pretending" they didn't have a contract so they could support their argument in court. Tricky but probably won't hold up in court. But, here's what I like most. Because UK wanted to be sued in Kentucky rather than TX they had to request a declaratory judgment in hopes that the case in TX which was filed before theirs would be dismissed and Gillispie would be forced to litigation in Kentucky. While that was a distinct possibility from the very beginning given the questionable issue of personal jurisdiction and possibly the (intentional?) naming of the wrong defendant, Gillispie has positioned himself perfectly. Either he gets to litigate in TX, which is more convenient and less expensive for him, or he gets a must faster adjudication of the contract issue in Kentucky since he induced the defendant to ask the court for it rather than having to weasel the case out of UK through discovery.

And I barely even touched on the merits... Man, I just love this stuff!