re: Court date for LSU vs the SEC Nov 18th per WBRZ

quote:

---

and we may have opened the lid and sniffed inside

---

Love the analogy. Cookies smell really good!

quote:

---

Can you post LSU's contention verbatim?

---

I think so. Stand by.

quote:

---

What exactly do these assholes want? .

---

quote:

---

A piece of paper that says the conference can enforce whatever rules they want to.

---

Absolutely correct. This is all they want.

Sankey knows they are not going to get the Sports Act passed, so this is Plan B -- getting some judge somewhere, anywhere, to rule on something that can be construed as giving them the ultimate authority to enforce their own rulebook, instead of some homer state or county judge.
I'm guessing that some of Sankey's Birmingham lawyers advised him to keep the thing local and they would provide him with the "right" judge.
LSU walked into the trap.

quote:

---

The court SETS a Hearing on the Motion to Strike (doc. 33 ) on November 18, 2026, 10:00 AM

---

Motion to strike =\= the motion to dismiss. Didn’t know there was a motion to strike.

quote:

---

Which cases? Can you post LSU's contention verbatim?

---

Short answer, the LSU "side" says these cases are the ones that negligently provided or hallucinated:

quote:

---

See, e.g., Great W. United Corp. v. Kidwell, 577 F.2d 1256, 1267–69 (5th Cir. 1978) (holding that a Texas court had personal jurisdiction over Idaho officials because of Idaho’s contacts with Texas), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173 (1979); arse’n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., 669 F. Supp. 2d 365, 394–96 & n.24 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (holding that the contacts of an official’s department are imputed to the official for purposes of personal jurisdiction), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 653 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 569 U.S. 576 (2013); PTI, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1188–90 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (similarly analyzing the contacts of other states with the forum).

---

This is going to get pretty deep in the weeds, so strap in if you want to take the ride.

The LSU "side" response said of these cites:

quote:

---

key SEC citations (Opp.14 & n.2) appear to be negligently supplied or hallucinated because they reject the in-line proposition that “the relevant contacts ... are those of the government entity”7

---

The SEC filed a motion to strike that statement. The LSU side stuck by it:

The issue is personal jurisdiction. Remember that LSU is no longer a party to the federal lawsuit; it is the board members individually (as well as others). For the law nerds, that is the only way you can bring a 1983 without crossing the 11th amendment line. It is the Ex Parte Young issue.

The LSU individuals say the only way they can be haled to Alabama is if they individually have minimum contacts there. The SEC cited the footnote 2 cases to argue that if LSU has the contacts, the individuals do too.

LSU says those cases are wrong on that point.

quote:

---

There is no question that the SEC made a mistake. Defendants recognize that this Court must make its own determination regarding whether the mistake reflects simple negligence or hallucinations.

---

Then it goes to the specific cases.

quote:

---

The SEC’s motion digs its hole deeper. The SEC continues to insist that Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. PTO, 669 F. Supp. 2d 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), supports the SEC even though that case rejects the SEC’s position.

---

I think the LSU side is right here. That case referred to contacts by the individuals as representatives. The LSU folks are in the case as representatives, and it follows that you should look at their individual contacts.

quote:

---

The SEC’s handling of Great Western United Corp. v. Kidwell, 577 F.2d 1256 (5th Cir. 1978), pulls short quotations out of context.

---

This one is more convincing. I think they are right here. We cite the full passage rather than the cherry-picked quotes, and it supports to the LSU view.

quote:

---

Turning to PTI, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (C.D. Cal. 2000), the SEC gives up entirely.

---

Again, right, I think. The SEC was wrong here. The case just does not support what they said.

quote:

---

Defendants do not know the reason for the SEC’s error. All they know is that it reflects the SEC’s profound misapprehension of its own cases. As noted above, however, Defendants do not seek sanctions for the error. ECF No. 33-1 at 3.

---

The whole thing is deep, deep in the weeds. I don't think it ultimately matters much. This is going to look like dogs peeing on bushes.

quote:

---

I believe we can now call you the official legal consultant of the Rant.

---

Well, I miffed it today! I did not read carefully. The motion set is the motion to strike, not the motion to dismiss.

Please don't sue me for malpractice, Chicken.

So they’re not AI hallucinated cases. Just cases that don’t support the proposition for which they’re cited according to the defendants. Just a pissing contest between the lawyers.

The judge has to recognize that this case is a massive waste of everyone’s time.

quote:

---

So they’re not AI hallucinated cases. Just cases that don’t support the proposition for which they’re cited according to the defendants. Just a pissing contest between the lawyers.

---

Do not seem to be hallucinated.

I think the SEC is really making a lot more out of it than they needed to.