PonyFans.com

it gets better...when Sowder was called to active duty, it was to advise judges handling cases for Gitmo detainees.....wonder what he's seen that is cruel and unusual. Leach may have a shot.

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/01 ... 2224.shtml

I'm pretty sure that damage to reputation in this kind of case is pretty much presumed and sufficient for irreparable harm in this case because reputation damages are difficult to calculate. If he were just suffering contract damages then there would be no irreparable harm because he could simply recover contract damages. However jtstang brought up a good point that his petition/affidavit could be flawed. I think the real issue will revolve around the reasonable liklihood of success on the merits issue which will be decided based upon whether Texas Tech followed their own due process procedures in suspending Leach

EastStang wrote:Leach better hope the Judge's wife isn't fat, or worse a fat woman.

Or has a fat daughter who used to date a tech football player until she was unexpectedly dumped.

so CJ, being a national talking head, could in turn file his own TRO pending the outcome of this TRO, because of the irreparable harm done to him.

And he's actually going to suffer damages, proximately caused by Leach, if he's missing out on a paycheck (assuming he gets a bonus or pay for each game he does)

Stallion- i read that if Leach is still employed by a certain date(in the next few days) he will be paid an extra $800,000. How much does this play into whats going on?

A lot-I actually think that's why a TRO was sought. If he is fired now Leach will seek retaliation damages for simply seeking his procedural due process rights under TT's own rules and regulations. Usually, that includes some sort of hearing before a panel in which he presents his side of the story. It doesn't appear that has occurred. Unless TT has diligently completed their own due process procedures they should be careful about firing him right now. Remember this is a state university and not an at will employee so Tech has much less abiliity to summarily dismiss Leach for cause.

Craig James is not a party to the cause of action so has no standing to seek a TRO or damages at this time.

There is no irreparable harm here. Irreparable harm is a harm that cannot be compensated by monetary damages. There is not that element here, as far as I can see it. Of course, if the judge is from Tech, maybe he will see it as "irreparable." But it ain't.

How do you quantify the damage to Mike Leach's reputation if the allegations prove to be untrue?

RGV Pony wrote:

friarwolf wrote:I wonder if the judge is a Tech grad..............

Nope. Baylor 1984.

aTm undergrad/Baylor grad.

Leach is an idiot. So now, instead of taking his lumps quietly, and hoping this thing goes away, he files a TRO against his employer just for a stupid suspension of an inconsequential bowl game.

I hope this blows up in his face so big that he would be lucky to get offered an assistant coaching job for a Pop Warner football team in some remote part of Alaska!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Stallion wrote:How do you quantify the damage to Mike Leach's reputation if the allegations prove to be untrue?

With all due respect, I don't believe that is a potential "harm." The suspension, in and of itself, does not damage anyone's reputation. It simply removes him from the situation until an investigation can be completed. Sort of laughable, but if he is going to argue irreparable harm, he needs to somehow convince the judge that missing the opportunity to coach in the bowl game would be the irreparable harm...that you can't quantify the feeling of missing that experience.

Also, juries quantify damages for "damage to reputation" all the time. It is a compensable injury. I don't think that matters though, because that is not the injury that is sought to be prevented.

Here's Texas caselaw that says otherwise:

For purposes of injunctive relief, no adequate remedy at law exists if damages are incapable of calculation, and an injured reputation cannot be readily restored with money. AIG Risk Mgmt., Inc. v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P., 960 S.W.2d 301, 309 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.).

Stallion wrote:Here's Texas caselaw that says otherwise:

For purposes of injunctive relief, no adequate remedy at law exists if damages are incapable of calculation, and an injured reputation cannot be readily restored with money. AIG Risk Mgmt., Inc. v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P., 960 S.W.2d 301, 309 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.).

I figured you've been logged into Westlaw frantically trying to find a case to rebut me. I'm sure I could find one saying the opposite if I tried (and probably wouldn't have to go to Corpus to find it), but I'm not going to spend my vacation time on Westlaw.

I practiced law full time in Texas for 7 years, and now practice in Louisiana, so I'm not as current on the status of Texas law regarding damage to reputation, but in Louisiana, damages are routinely sought, quantified and awarded by juries for damage to reputation.

At issue, though, is HOW is not being allowed to coach in a bowl game a "damage to reputation." If there was any damage to reputation, it has probably already occurred. I don't see how being allowed to coach in the bowl game, through TRO, restores that. There is no "damage to reputation" that applies here.