Always appreciate your time and sharing insights on this matter. It's not only of some consequence to our Bears, but of interest in the larger scheme of what is happening in the college athletics landscape.
I'd post it, but there is a pretty good article out there which breaks out Power 5 teams into six categories and discusses most of the teams from the Power 5 Surprisingly, Cal is put in the fourth category, Bowl Season, but discusses Cal first if that big group cause the guy likes Cal's chances. Has some nice things to say about Mendoza and even Wilcox.
But I can't say much more about this very good article because I might get punished for a huge suspension, I think 90 days this time. That's how the no rules WFC rolls!!!!!!!!!! If they don't like you, just fuck anything about rules. Just pound on the guy even though he makes some decent, though different, comments.
So what I'm hearing is this is like when Pepsi sued first, in the Southern District of New York, when the Florida dude got enough Pepsi Points to redeem a Harrier jet.
The case law you are citing doesn’t necessarily substantiate that a first to file exception would apply here. Here’s an excerpt from prior precedent cited in Orbisat with respect to filing first in Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005):
“ In determining whether compelling circumstances exist, we have recognized that for declaratory judgment actions "one equitable consideration . . . is whether the . . . action was filed in apparent anticipation of the other pending proceeding." Ven-Fuel, Inc. v. Dep't of the Treasury, 673 F.2d 1194, 1195 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Amerada Petroleum, 381 F.2d at 663 (noting that filing a declaratory judgment action in anticipation of suit in another forum "is an equitable consideration which the district court was entitled to take into account"). Even if a court finds that a filing is anticipatory, this consideration does not transmogrify into an obligatory rule mandating dismissal. See Ven-Fuel, 673 F.2d at 1195. Such a finding still remains one equitable factor among many that a district court can consider in determining whether to hear a declaratory judgment action. See id.; see also Wilton, 515 U.S. at 286, 115 S.Ct. at 2142.”
Look further into the circumstances of the Ven-Fuel case as well. Based on the available public record at the time of filing, can it be concluded the ACC was in apparent anticipation of another pending proceeding or imminent legal filing? Perhaps, but not with certainty as the FSU BOT meeting notice agenda is fairly vague in that there are a wide array of topics that could fall under the header: “legal matters related to the department of intercollegiate athletics”. Has FSU cited any obvious threats or warnings of legal action made towards the ACC predating the 12/22/23 BOT meeting vote? I haven’t seen that yet, but if they do then perhaps your point will stand. I think this is part of the reason why the ACC highlights the FSU BOT apparent subversion of Florida sunshine laws and its own operating procedures under the auspices of an “emergency” meeting with less than 24 hours notice. FSU conducted their BOT meeting and filed suit on a day the court was closed…why? Because, as the ACC seems poised to argue, FSU was itself trying to win a race to the courthouse!
Always appreciate your time and sharing insights on this matter. It's not only of some consequence to our Bears, but of interest in the larger scheme of what is happening in the college athletics landscape.
Gobears49
I'd post it, but there is a pretty good article out there which breaks out Power 5 teams into six categories and discusses most of the teams from the Power 5 Surprisingly, Cal is put in the fourth category, Bowl Season, but discusses Cal first if that big group cause the guy likes Cal's chances. Has some nice things to say about Mendoza and even Wilcox.
But I can't say much more about this very good article because I might get punished for a huge suspension, I think 90 days this time. That's how the no rules WFC rolls!!!!!!!!!! If they don't like you, just fuck anything about rules. Just pound on the guy even though he makes some decent, though different, comments.
So what I'm hearing is this is like when Pepsi sued first, in the Southern District of New York, when the Florida dude got enough Pepsi Points to redeem a Harrier jet.
looks like FSU is amending their complaints too
https://www.on3.com/teams/florida-state-seminoles/news/fsu-takes-aim-at-former-acc-commissioner-john-swofford-in-amended-complaint/
Did they make any reference to Swofford's brother being the guy who sang "Good Morning Starshine"? Because that would be an even more personal attack.
The case law you are citing doesn’t necessarily substantiate that a first to file exception would apply here. Here’s an excerpt from prior precedent cited in Orbisat with respect to filing first in Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005):
“ In determining whether compelling circumstances exist, we have recognized that for declaratory judgment actions "one equitable consideration . . . is whether the . . . action was filed in apparent anticipation of the other pending proceeding." Ven-Fuel, Inc. v. Dep't of the Treasury, 673 F.2d 1194, 1195 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Amerada Petroleum, 381 F.2d at 663 (noting that filing a declaratory judgment action in anticipation of suit in another forum "is an equitable consideration which the district court was entitled to take into account"). Even if a court finds that a filing is anticipatory, this consideration does not transmogrify into an obligatory rule mandating dismissal. See Ven-Fuel, 673 F.2d at 1195. Such a finding still remains one equitable factor among many that a district court can consider in determining whether to hear a declaratory judgment action. See id.; see also Wilton, 515 U.S. at 286, 115 S.Ct. at 2142.”
Look further into the circumstances of the Ven-Fuel case as well. Based on the available public record at the time of filing, can it be concluded the ACC was in apparent anticipation of another pending proceeding or imminent legal filing? Perhaps, but not with certainty as the FSU BOT meeting notice agenda is fairly vague in that there are a wide array of topics that could fall under the header: “legal matters related to the department of intercollegiate athletics”. Has FSU cited any obvious threats or warnings of legal action made towards the ACC predating the 12/22/23 BOT meeting vote? I haven’t seen that yet, but if they do then perhaps your point will stand. I think this is part of the reason why the ACC highlights the FSU BOT apparent subversion of Florida sunshine laws and its own operating procedures under the auspices of an “emergency” meeting with less than 24 hours notice. FSU conducted their BOT meeting and filed suit on a day the court was closed…why? Because, as the ACC seems poised to argue, FSU was itself trying to win a race to the courthouse!
nice username!
You can tell he’s a scholar!