Search the Lounge

« Barry Currier Named New Head Of Accreditation And Legal Education At ABA | Main | Why Standing Exists in Windsor But Not in Hollingsworth »

March 28, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Not Buying It

The Judge, relying on the generic allegations of plaintiffs' attorneys, did not seem to have a very good grasp of the facts of the case. For example, the Judge quotes the plaintiff's brief as saying that Widener's U.S. News ranking was inflated by its employment statistics. Opinion page 5. Really? What year has Widener ever been in anything other than Rank Not Published/4th Tier in U.S. News? That is the lowest rank, and they do not distinguish within that lowest rank. It is not possible to be ranked lower. How could a federal judge have missed that rather obvious point?

concerned for Widener

I think everyone expects this suit to be a loser eventually. Certainly having the suit drag on is bad news for Widener. Another problem will be the fishing that is done during discovery. Many expect some hay to be made with the discovery results. Widener can ill afford this right now.

Its Over

The NY Court of Appeals just denied cert in the NYLS case. Stick a fork in these lawsuits in at least one state.

Ralph D. Clifford

To Not Buying It:

The motion decided was a 12(b)(6). The judge is required to accept the allegations in the complaint as true and decide whether they then constitute a cause of action. (See page 7 of the opinion). All the judge was doing (on page 5 of the opinion) is stating what the plaintiffs were alleging. It will be a far different matter of being able to prove that particular allegation, but that is not reached by 12(b)(6).

The comments to this entry are closed.

Bloggers Emereti

Blog powered by Typepad