Bush Library/Lawsuit

SMU Football Blog · Post by **SMU Football Blog** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:17 pm

I suspect Vodicka to file a Motion to Remand shortly.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:19 pm

SMU Football Blog wrote:I suspect Vodicka to file a Motion to Remand shortly.

Probably can't get it set for hearing before the MSJ. Although you don't always have a hearing in federal court in Dallas.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:20 pm

mrydel wrote:In case I forget to tell you tomorrow (or Monday) Happy Birthday jtstang.

Thanks mrydel. I always wanted to make it to 42. Every day after that is gravy.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:21 pm

he's trapped like a Rat this time. I was wondering with the combination of SMU alumni and Bush appointees, how many judges would have to recuse themselves. I wonder why Fitzwater recused himself? Buchmeyer goes all the way back to Jimmy Carter.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:34 pm

Haven't looked at the effect of Erie on this rather unique situation in a while. Does the federal court apply Texas substantive law interpreting Texas procedural [summary judgment] law in this case on the Texas state law claims. Because Vodrica may have shot himself in the foot. The Federal standards for summary judgment are much easier to meet than under Texas procedural [summary judgment] law. Jtstang or Blog if you could research that for us all and write and post a legal memorandum on that issue by about 5:30 tonite I'd appreciate it. I will pay you with 30 SMU/Tulsa Tickets at a Face Value $35 * 30= some $1,050 that should cover your exorbitant rates. God I hate Conflicts of Law.

SMU Football Blog · Post by **SMU Football Blog** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:53 pm

Stallion wrote:God I hate Conflicts of Law.

Somehow I stayed out of that class. BK law is soooo much easier. "Here is the code. What circuit are we in? The 9th? Oh, crap."

The one time I had a conflict of laws issue, if I recall, it should be federal procedural law.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:00 pm

that's what I'm thinking. Isn't there something called Federal Rules made substantive law. Could be a tactical error on Vodrica's part.

SMU Football Blog · Post by **SMU Football Blog** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:05 pm

His alternative, I suppose, was to try and wait Patterson out through other state court manuevers. From what I gather, Patterson hated Vodicka and if the hearing was the day before he left the bench, he would have found a way to get a ruling entered.

To me, the question is what if SMU's MSJ is granted and it is later determined that the federal court really should not have had jurisdiction?

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:07 pm

My understanding is if a federal procedural rule covers something, the federal court is bound to follow it. So the MSJ will be subject to federal procedural standards. But that is from the learned treatise "jtstang On The Law", Section 23.8(b) (2d Ed., West 2004), so take it with a grain of salt.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:08 pm

You know I hate to say it but I see another possibility for a short delay. When state law issues predominate a particular cause of action it is not uncommon for a federal court to simply decide the federal law issues and dismiss or remand the state law issues to state court. Patterson might be gone before the case is remanded and then it would be in front of a Democratic judge deciding the future of a bid for a Republican Presidential Library-not that there is anything wrong with that.

SMU Football Blog · Post by **SMU Football Blog** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:09 pm

jtstang wrote:But that is from the learned treatise "jtstang On The Law", Section 23.8(b) (2d Ed., West 2004), so take it with a grain of salt.

I hear the library staff haven't gotten around to updating it quite some time.

Stallion wrote:You know I hate to say it but I see another possibility for a short delay. When state law issues predominate a particular cause of action it is not uncommon for a federal court to simply decide the federal law issues and dismiss or remand the state law issues to state court.

I think that decision is discretionary. These circumstances cry out for hearing the whole thing. No judge is going to let Vodicka get away with the jurisdictional cr@p he has been pulling since April.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:12 pm

SMU Football Blog wrote:To me, the question is what if SMU's MSJ is granted and it is later determined that the federal court really should not have had jurisdiction?

The 5th Circuit would have to make that determination (assuming the trial court did not reverse itself sua sponte), and I assume Vodicka would have to post a bond to find out. Besides, I think the RICO claims are intertwined with the same facts as the state law claims, so pendant jurisdiction (is that right?) would exist.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:12 pm

It definitely is discretionary-I've had Judges rule both ways several times. Are the issues really so intertwined-not so sure- in which case it would only be supplemental jurisdiction. Right?

SMU Football Blog · Post by **SMU Football Blog** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:14 pm

Let's go down there together. We can do the wave and cheer John McElhaney and Michael Collins on. At least until we are arrested.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:20 pm

BTW I cited Ponyfans.com for my Yearly Continuing Legal Education Self Study Hours on my Yearly Report to the Texas Bar. Should I be concerned? Hope I don't end up like Vodrica and have my license pulled.