Lawsuit is NOT about a breach of contract and NOT for damages (money)

I have a Declaratory Judgement to make that Brian Kelly is a used car salesman fraud that started to steal money, act as a lazy ceo instead of a hands on football coach in the building day in day out setting the example for all to see. He rather do press conferences spitting out fancy lines of not holding himself accountable and always has excuses for failures.

quote:

---

I have a Declaratory Judgement to make that Brian Kelly is a used car salesman fraud that started to steal money, act as a lazy ceo instead of a hands on football coach in the building day in day out setting the example for all to see. He rather do press conferences spitting out fancy lines of not holding himself accountable and always has excuses for failures.

---

I'll add to it....

also someone who is owed all of his buyout if he wants it

quote:

---

Brian Kelly is a used car salesman fraud that started to steal money, act as a lazy ceo instead of a hands on football coach in the building day in day out

---

yesterday BK was a victim of Woody's unhinged meddling

no saying per you but it's funny how narratives shift every day on here

quote:

---

Lawsuit is NOT about a breach of contract

---

Correct, kind of. People ask for declaratory judgments to ask for a court to outline the rights and remedies of a contract. To get these, you need to have a justiciable controversy. The controversy is whether BK is subject to the liquidated damages clause. I think this is one of the rare instances where a dec action is appropriate.

quote:

---

First, LSU is paying Kelly as per the contract. There is no allegation that LSU has not paid or has refused to pay. Legally, this lawsuit is for a "Declaratory Judgment" to determine the relationship status between Kelly and LSU. Practically, it is a bullshite move designed to move the needle via social media.

---

Just objectively incorrect. See paragraph 42 of the complaint. It's a dispute about whether a liquidated damages was triggered because of BK's termination without cause. If LSU's legal position is that they can "convert" this termination into one with cause or that BK wasn't even terminated, that argument isn't going to go far.

quote:

---

I wonder if LSU is possibly using Kelly’s refusal to fire Sloane as a ground for firing for cause?

---

I asked this a couple of weeks ago and was laughed at, so who knows.

quote:

---

I wonder if LSU is possibly using Kelly’s refusal to fire Sloane as a ground for firing for cause?
It’s one of the For Cause clauses and relates to his duties under the contract.

---

That's the story I'm telling myself today. He won't fire Sloane, him and LSU are at a management impasse, agree to part ways rather than terminate (which would be for cause), LSU starts negotiating, Kelly pretends to be in negotiations and then drop this suit to try and eliminate this bargaining chip by getting a judgment that he has already been terminated, with LSU missing the cure period window.

I had relied on what I read here as far as termination language, but read that part of the contract again today and realized LSU had more power in that regard that had been reported. Which makes sense, because you can't just have a disobedient employee with no recourse but to pay his entire contract (which almost seems like the majority of people here think).

quote:

---

If LSU's legal position is that they can "convert" this termination into one with cause or that BK wasn't even terminated, that argument isn't going to go far.

---

The issue at hand is whether it defaulted to a termination without cause.

They are trying their best to frame it as a foregone conclusion that it is a termination without cause. If LSU never gave him a written notice of termination, and he is otherwise still employed. So i think this is indeed a judgement as to the relationship - because if he is deemed terminated (even without notice), they will argue that they missed the window in which he could provide a cure.

They dropped this story overnight, exactly 7 days from when the LSU President (who is the person authorized to terminate him with cause in the contract) was hired. I think this was all pre-mediated by Kelly and his legal team.

ETA - if LSU and Kelly decided to negotiate the buyout rather than terminate immediately, they may be on stronger ground than you think - Kelly said he was open to negotiations in an email recapping a meeting. At that time, he made sure to reference his "termination" ....he planned this, which is why he turned down the offer that would net him more money if he still wants to actually work.

Based on Brian Kelly’s 2021 employment contract with LSU, the head coach would indeed be in violation if he refused to dismiss an assistant coach after being instructed to do so by the athletic director.

Here’s the relevant clause:

“The Head Coach shall, at all times, comply with and carry out the reasonable directives and decisions of the Athletic Director and the President. The Head Coach shall ensure that all assistant coaches and other football staff members also comply with the directives of the Athletic Director and President.”

Explanation

This section gives the Athletic Director (AD) authority to issue directives that the head coach must “carry out.” Since employment and dismissal decisions for assistant coaches fall under the athletic department’s oversight, a directive from the AD to terminate an assistant coach would qualify as one that must be followed.

Therefore:

If the AD directly instructs Brian Kelly to dismiss an assistant coach,

And Kelly refuses to do so,

then Kelly would be in violation of his contractual duty to carry out directives from the Athletic Director.

Consequences

While the contract doesn’t specify the exact penalty for that specific violation, noncompliance could be treated as:

Breach of contract, or

Cause for termination, under sections defining “for cause” termination, which include failure to comply with university or athletic department directives .

So what options does LSU have in regards to their response?

quote:

---

Kelly is essentially daring LSU to bring out the dirt

---

In short, in keeping with his previous 3 1/2 years here, he’s gonna try to frick us on his way out the door.