Update on Hardwick lawsuit

[rbny1]

The case keeps getting delayed. Harwick filed her lawsuit on June 11. On August 8, both sides extended the deadline for the defendants to respond until September 14. Today they agreed on a further extension to September 28. I will defer to the lawyers on the Boneyard as to whether the delays have any significance or whether delays are common in civil lawsuits. Perhaps the parties are negotiating, perhaps not. Again, I will defer to the lawyers.

You can read the filings in the case by clicking below; then entering the code given on the website and clicking the Submit button; entering Auriemma in Defendant Search and clicking Search button; and finally clicking on the Index Number for the Harwick/Auriemma case:

Click Here

 

[caravaggio]

Extensions are very common, although I have not done very much work in NY state court. I didn't have time to look at the pleasings, but I almost never refuse an opposing's attorney's request for extensions. It's a matter of professional courtesy. The only exception is when there is some sort of urgent timeline involved in the case --such as needing an injunction in place by a certain deadline---which does not appear to be the case here.

The case keeps getting delayed. Harwick filed her lawsuit on June 11. On August 8, both sides extended the deadline for the defendants to respond until September 14. Today they agreed on a further extension to September 28. I will defer to the lawyers on the Boneyard as to whether the delays have any significance or whether delays are common in civil lawsuits. Perhaps the parties are negotiating, perhaps not. Again, I will defer to the lawyers.

You can read the filings in the case by clicking below; then entering the code given on the website and clicking the Submit button; entering Auriemma in Defendant Search and clicking Search button; and finally clicking on the Index Number for the Harwick/Auriemma case:

Click Here

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

Extensions are very common, although I have not done very much work in NY state court. I didn't have time to look at the pleasings, but I almost never refuse an opposing's attorney's request for extensions. It's a matter of professional courtesy. The only exception is when there is some sort of urgent timeline involved in the case --such as needing an injunction in place by a certain deadline---which does not appear to be the case here.

Speaking generally, extensions are common (though much more common in state court than federal court), based on several factors, including, but not limited to:

1) Schedule of the attorneys/parties involved (e.g., being out of the country, medical situation, trial in another lawsuit, etc.)
2) Settlement negotiations (working out a settlement to forego expensive and drawn-out litigation).
3) Availability of information needed to respond to the complaint and for affirmative defenses (e.g., conducting extensive research of electronically stored information),

 

[CL82]

I suspect that 2) is driving things here. The NBA response is going to detail, to some extent at least, that there were performance based reasons why Ms. Hardwick was not assigned to protect the WOBB team. That bell can't be unrung, but until it is out there there is incentive for the plaintiff to settle to keep it out of the public eye. Until all parties are sure that that settlement can't be reached it is everyone's best interest to extend the response deadline.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

I suspect that 2) is driving things here. The NBA response is going to detail, to some extent at least, that there were performance based reasons why Ms. Hardwick was not assigned to protect the WOBB team. That bell can't be unrung, but until it is out there there is incentive for the plaintiff to settle to keep it out of the public eye. Until all parties are sure that that settlement can't be reached it is everyone's best interest to extend the response deadline.

This is also a good point, as there is (generally) absolute immunity for defamation for statements made in legal proceedings.

 

[speedoo]

I suspect that 2) is driving things here. The NBA response is going to detail, to some extent at least, that there were performance based reasons why Ms. Hardwick was not assigned to protect the WOBB team. That bell can't be unrung, but until it is out there there is incentive for the plaintiff to settle to keep it out of the public eye. Until all parties are sure that that settlement can't be reached it is everyone's best interest to extend the response deadline.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

[CL82]

This is also a good point, as there is (generally) absolute immunity for defamation for statements made in legal proceedings.

Of course truth is an absolute defense in any case.

 

[OneTrickPony]

When the NBA assigned Hardwick to the NBA players on the Olympic Team, it would seem that her purported damages were either capped or eliminated. That may have trimmed the sails of her legal team substantially...

 

[easttexastrash]

When the NBA assigned Hardwick to the NBA players on the Olympic Team, it would seem that her purported damages were either capped or eliminated. That may have trimmed the sails of her legal team substantially...

Assignment to the HIGHEST profile athletes in the Olympics would certainly not be a sign of incompetency within the organization. You don't build a case of incompetency against someone and the assign the most high profile assignment to them.

 

[OneTrickPony]

Assignment to the HIGHEST profile athletes in the Olympics would certainly not be a sign of incompetency within the organization. You don't build a case of incompetency against someone and the assign the most high profile assignment to them.

My point was that if her damages were that she was being passed over for the best assignments, then by giving her the best assignment...then what damages remain?

 

[easttexastrash]

My point was that if her damages were that she was being passed over for the best assignments, then by giving her the best assignment...then what damages remain?

Just because she was given a high profile case that does not mean that it is the one she most wanted. She had served with the women's team for years and apparently loved that assignment. Is it the best if it's not the one she wanted most? Who defines "best" unless the pay is better? Even if it did pay more maybe the money didn't make up for the loss of her previous assignment.

 

[alexrgct]

Just because she was given a high profile case that does not mean that it is the one she most wanted. She had served with the women's team for years and apparently loved that assignment. Is it the best if it's not the one she wanted most? Who defines "best" unless the pay is better? Even if it did pay more maybe the money didn't make up for the loss of her previous assignment.

Cry me a river.

 

[doggydaddy]

Just because she was given a high profile case that does not mean that it is the one she most wanted. She had served with the women's team for years and apparently loved that assignment. Is it the best if it's not the one she wanted most? Who defines "best" unless the pay is better? Even if it did pay more maybe the money didn't make up for the loss of her previous assignment.

You've been quite contrary, Mary. How does your garden grow?

You always get exactly the assignments you want at work?

All will come out. In the meantime, I would suggest we all stop guessing.

 

[Icebear]

No one is guaranteed assignments by their employer that is the one they most want. It is the employers right to distribute assignments as they see fit. If you don't want it you have options, such as, resigning.

 

[OneTrickPony]

Just because she was given a high profile case that does not mean that it is the one she most wanted. She had served with the women's team for years and apparently loved that assignment. Is it the best if it's not the one she wanted most? Who defines "best" unless the pay is better? Even if it did pay more maybe the money didn't make up for the loss of her previous assignment.

You are right in that the damages are reduced to pain and suffering of the mental variety. Jerzy Kozinski liked to argue in his books that mental anguish was the equivalent of physical pain and had his characters horribly murder people who had offended them. Ms. Hardwick will be hoping the NBA fears a jury with similar views. However, they seem to have taken steps calculated to reduce a jury's sympathy which in my view makes a settlement more likely on Ms. Hardwick's side and less so on theirs.

DD - I hereby stop guessing!

 

[Phil]

Of course truth is an absolute defense in any case.

In the US. Not true everywhere.

 

[easttexastrash]

You are right in that the damages are reduced to pain and suffering of the mental variety. Jerzy Kozinski liked to argue in his books that mental anguish was the equivalent of physical pain and had his characters horribly murder people who had offended them. Ms. Hardwick will be hoping the NBA fears a jury with similar views. However, they seem to have taken steps calculated to reduce a jury's sympathy which in my view makes a settlement more likely on Ms. Hardwick's side and less so on theirs.

DD - I hereby stop guessing!

Thanks, OTP. I wasn't stating this to be the truth, only using the argument that her attorney may use. Just looking at it from the point of the plaintiff

 

[CL82]

Assignment to the HIGHEST profile athletes in the Olympics would certainly not be a sign of incompetency within the organization. You don't build a case of incompetency against someone and the assign the most high profile assignment to them.

Wasn't she assigned to an official, either Stern or an USOC official? She could perform poorly around athletes, say enthusiastically cheering or shouting encouragement or instruction, instead of performing her duties, and yet be able function adequately when protecting an individual.

 

[CL82]

In the US. Not true everywhere.

How fortunate, then, that she filed in the US.

 

[cabbie191]

Extensions are very common, although I have not done very much work in NY state court. I didn't have time to look at the pleasings, but I almost never refuse an opposing's attorney's request for extensions. It's a matter of professional courtesy. The only exception is when there is some sort of urgent timeline involved in the case --such as needing an injunction in place by a certain deadline---which does not appear to be the case here.

For those of us without legal backgrounds, could you please explain what "pleasings" refers to? Thanks.

 

[calpedaler]

For those of us without legal backgrounds, could you please explain what "pleasings" refers to? Thanks.

Maybe caravaggio meant "pleadings".

 

[caravaggio]

Indeed, it should have been "pleadings," which are usually anything but pleasing to the other side

Many apologies.

Maybe caravaggio meant "pleadings".

 

[easttexastrash]

For those of us without legal backgrounds, could you please explain what "pleasings" refers to? Thanks.

I think he meant "pleadings" but I could be wrong.

 

[Bestiarius]

For those of us without legal backgrounds, could you please explain what "pleasings" refers to? Thanks.

I think he meant pleadings.

 

[Icebear]

Pretty sure it was pleadings.

I had the opposite experience. I sent my wife a note from work the other night. I tried to tell her she was always pleasing to me .