Court dismisses Hardwick lawsuit vs. Geno

[rbny1]

The court ruled it lacked jurisdiction and, in a ruling filed yesterday, has dismissed the case against Geno and the other defendants in its entirety. I think this link will work:

CASE DISMISSED!

I leave it to the lawyers on the board to interpret the decision and suggest what, if anything, is likely to happen next.

 

[Icebear]

Glad for Geno that it is finally over. But who knows it may get refiled in a different jurisdiction. I hope and pray not.

 

[EricLA]

So glad it's over... for now. At first I was horrified, but as I read the news and learned more about it, it seemed more and more ridiculous - sour grapes on the part of the accuser. Time to move on for sure!!

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Seems like a well reasoned opinion. Gave me the hives to read it, but that is a different story!

 

[Adesmar123]

"CASE DISMISSED!"

I think the word will be that ESPN paid the court to dismiss the suit.

 

[vtcwbuff]

The suit wasn't dismissed because it had no merit. It was dismissed because the court where the suit was filed had no jurisdiction. That means she can continue to pursue it - if she has the money.

Anyone else get the impression that this woman is a jerk? Every time I read any documents regarding this suit I come away with the opinion that she invented the 2009 event because she pissed at Auriemma. It sounds like Auriemma wanted her gone because she seemed to be paying more attention to the basketball instead of her duties as a security officer.

 

[TRest]

The suit was filed where and when in order to create leverage prior to the Summer Olympics. Once that came and went without her being re-assigned to the women's team, she (and her counsel) will probably lose interest in bringing it in a proper venue.

 

[JS]

The court ruled it lacked jurisdiction and, in a ruling filed yesterday, has dismissed the case against Geno and the other defendants in its entirety.

We had threads here in which the "Boneyard lawyers" predicted the case would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as it was.

What happens now?

I'd guess the plaintiff and her attorneys will choose not to throw good money after bad by appealing or re-filing in a different court. Don't know her fee arrangement, but her attorneys may have been operating at least partly on a contingency and are eating a good deal of their potential time charges at this point.

I'd be rather surprised if she comes to Connecticut to file suit, which would require a re-tooling of the case under different laws and probably local lawyers.

They rushed into that particular NY court -- where they didn't legally belong and which has now given them the boot -- in order to try to create publicity and pressure for a pre-Olympics settlement. They couldn't get into court elsewhere, including in the Connecticut courts, without first going through the preliminary administrative proceedings that are often required in employment law cases.

So they had all kinds of procedural problems with the case, which only gradually dawned on them as they eventually amended their complaint to allege a few irrelevant facts intended (unsuccessfully) to establish NY long-arm jurisdiction.

So the procedural problems have not been resolved, and are still ahead of them if they want to continue. And that's before you even get to the fact that, on its merits, the case appears all kinds of flimsy.

So who knows what she'll do, but giving her the benefit of the assumption that she's rational and has competent counsel, the suit is likely dead as a doornail.

I'm not taking your case, Ms. Hardwick. Don't bother to ask.

 

[arty155]

 

[Kibitzer]

I think somebody should advise Ms. Hardwick that her fifteen minutes are up.

 

[JimGunther]

Reading the material, I saw references to "injury" in London. Had she amended / updated her complaint for some alleged 'injury' during the Olympics?

Why does this whole thing smell like someone's hidden agenda?

 

[EricLA]

Reading the material, I saw references to "injury" in London. Had she amended / updated her complaint for some alleged 'injury' during the Olympics?

Why does this whole thing smell like someone's hidden agenda?

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

 

[HGN]

GREAT NEWS .........Regardless of why it was Dismissed, it was Dismissed. Now she will have to go through all the trouble , and expense , to Re-File. Hopefully , the trouble of having to Re-File will be enough to let this woman know to drop this matter and get on with her life.

 

[Biff]

Reading the material, I saw references to "injury" in London. Had she amended / updated her complaint for some alleged 'injury' during the Olympics?

Why does this whole thing smell like someone's hidden agenda?

IIRC there was an incident getting on a bus or something where she perceived a slight to her by Geno. I think she amended that to to her claim.

Also I think she complained that she was not granted access to some venue that she needed to get into to do her job. She may have accused Geno or someone else of being the cause. On that I do not recall all that much.

The tension must have made it real fun over there.

 

[Mescarlett]

Praise the Lord for now it's over...

So I had been pondering this ... had for some wild reason this thing gone to trial (which I don't think it ever would have), do you think Chris Dailey would have had to testify? I mean I could only imagine how nasty this thing could've gotten.

 

[JS]

Reading the material, I saw references to "injury" in London. Had she amended / updated her complaint for some alleged 'injury' during the Olympics?

Her original complaint alleged violations of New York State and City human rights laws. After the Olympics she amended it to add a claim of assault. This is the "injury" the court speaks of in assessing where (for jurisdictional purposes) the alleged wrongful act took place.

It is not a physical injury in this sense. The court means simply the harm complained of.

Bear in mind that, for legal purposes, an assault is not what the average person thinks it is. It's basically only a threat to do imminent violence, such as waving a club at someone. If accompanied by actual touching, such as hitting, it becomes an "assault and battery."

Specifically, Hardwick alleged that Geno "screamed" at her and pointed his finger at her in a threatening manner.

According to the allegation, he was demanding she move from where she was sitting in the stands at a practice. This was part of an ongoing dispute they had over where she sat (too close in his opinion) and how involved she got (cheering, etc.).

Her characterizations of "screaming" and the ominous pointing (I'm sure she was terrified) are of course rather subjective.

As I see it, he may not have wanted cheers for particular plays in practice (maybe they were good plays in her eyes, but not in his), or for any plays, found them a distraction and interference and didn't want her participation.

And that's aside from whether she was doing her job as a security officer. One can imagine that while playing the involved fan she'd have noticed a terrorist only if he came up and tapped her on the shoulder.

 

[CL82]

Good summary. If I remember correctly there was at least one element of her claim that relied on NY law. I'm not sure that she can file elsewhere, even if she could get a lawyer to take the case for her. I'm curious to see if sanctions or a malpractice claim result from this. Either a big miss by her attorney or he deliberately ignored jurisdiction so that he could file in time to put the squeeze on before the Olympics.

 

[Icebear]

I think somebody should advise Ms. Hardwick that her fifteen minutes are up.

I was thinking it was more that it was past midnight and all she had left were pumpkins and mice.

 

[UcMiami]

I'm not taking your case, Ms. Hardwick. Don't bother to ask.

Darn - after all that articulate and reasoned writing I was sure there was going to be a closing: 'Call Me!"
Thanks for the explanation.
As others have said I suspect the initial filing was on contingency (though she may have had some expenses for the amendments) hoping for a quick strike. And that any further action will require some upfront cash. Given the limited chances of a big score I would think this is dead.

 

[Biff]

Appeal Filed

Looks like the lawyer is making it all about Geno.....

 

[OneTrickPony]

This case demonstrates a lot about what is wrong with US Civil justice...

 

[LesMis89]

It comes across as though the appeal was filed because that's the best hope for making the case, even if it's a fairly flimsy one. (Rather than re-filing in CT)

Could the plaintiff's lawyer proceed on two paths simultaneously: appealing in NY while re-filing in CT?

 

[rbny1]

Appeal Filed

Looks like the lawyer is making it all about Geno.....

That's been true since the day the lawsuit was filed. Hardwick's lawyer has consistently publicized the case by turning it into an attack on Geno and his alleged misdeeds. I guess the tactic is aimed at embarrassing him in hopes of getting a big settlement. So far the tactic hasn't worked.

In the linked article, the lawyer is quoted as saying, "This is not the end for Mr. Auriemma. It's just the beginning. The case isn't over. Not by a long shot.'' What makes me think Geno will not be intimidated?

 

[JimGunther]

Given how well-reasoned the original complaint and amendment were constructed (Can you say "a screed"?), I expect the hurridly filed appeal will also be dismissed.

What's the latin expression, "The court doesn't deal with trivial crap" which this surely is?

That's been true since the day the lawsuit was filed. Hardwick's lawyer has consistently publicized the case by turning it into an attack on Geno and his alleged misdeeds. I guess the tactic is aimed at embarrassing him in hopes of getting a big settlement. So far the tactic hasn't worked.

In the linked article, the lawyer is quoted as saying, "This is not the end for Mr. Auriemma. It's just the beginning. The case isn't over. Not by a long shot.'' What makes me think Geno will not be intimidated?

 

[CL82]

Her decision's based on what's popularly called `legal technicalities,' personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction,'' McLaughlin said. "She's expressing her opinion and she's not deciding the merits whether or not Mr. Auriemma did the things we allege that he did in the complaint. She's just saying that jurisdictionally we don't have a basis to bring them into New York. I think they may have mentioned something about jurisdiction in law school but Civil Procedure is a first year class, and I really wasn't paying attention."
McLaughlin said that the appeals process could take up to six months or one year to reach a conclusion. Auriemma declined to comment Tuesday.

"The decision is incorrect,'' McLaughlin said. "We think that Mr. Auriemma, as alleged in the complaint, took certain actions to have and continue to injure Ms. Hardwick's performance of her job in New York. And that the New York Courts have jurisdiction over him because he injected himself into Ms. Hardwick's life by trying to influence her employer's decisions. This is not the law, but we really, really want this to be true because if it is not my malpractice premiums are going to skyrocket. This is not the end for Mr. Auriemma. It's just the beginning. The case isn't over. Not by a long shot."

[Translation: We're screwed and I have to hope that I can squeeze a buck or two out of this guy and to placate my client. Minimally, I can forestall the inevitable malpractice claim for another 6 months.]