Duke lacrosse lawsuits going forward, at least in part
Judge James Beaty of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina has denied, at least in part, the motions to dismiss in Evans v. City of Durham, the action by the three indicted Duke lacrosse players (they previously settled with Duke University) and the motions for summary judgment in Carrington v. Duke University, the actions by the 39 unindicted lacrosse players.
This is a shock, I must admit. These motions have been pending for almost two years now. And I--and Sam Kamin, who wrote a terrific essay on the constitutional claims for my book on the case--really believed that at least the constitutional claims were non-starters.
I will have more to say once I have a chance to read the lengthy opinions.
-- Posted by Howard Wasserman @ 4/01/2011 03:49:00 PM --
Comments (2) --
Post a Comment
2 Comments:
The bulk of Carrington v Duke was dismissed, especially the counts against Duke and its officials. The only substantive count remaining for Duke is Count 11, which could be an interesting test case on fiduciary responsibility.
Fun note from the conclusion: "The Court is compelled to note that while ยง 1983 cases are often complex and involve multiple Defendants, Plaintiffs in this case have exceeded all reasonable bounds with respect to the length of their Complaint and the breadth of claims and assertions contained therein."
View Michael McCann's LinkedIn Profile
