- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Who filed the motion to continue?
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:16 pm
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:16 pm
It’s good for LSU either way and both possibilities are hilarious.
4
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:16 pm to Obi Wan Ryobi
Both parties
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:17 pm to Obi Wan Ryobi
Either the SEC or both parties. I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think LSU would be able to unilaterally motion for it and have it granted
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:19 pm to LOL
quote:
Both parties
Is this confirmed?
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:21 pm to Obi Wan Ryobi
quote:
Is this confirmed?
I think if it happened before the hearing, they would have had to be in agreement.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:22 pm to Tiger in the Sticks
For a TRO, only the plaintiff presents evidence. I would think it could be postponed one-sided but I assume the two sides worked behind the scenes on this.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:24 pm to Walnut
quote:
I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think LSU would be able to unilaterally motion for it and have it granted
correct. Both parties have to agree to continue.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:24 pm to Tiger in the Sticks
quote:
I think if it happened before the hearing, they would have had to be in agreement.
Not true at all. Judges grant these all the time on papers.
Not saying you’re wrong about it being both parties, but we don’t have enough info to know that yet. We need someone with a PACER login
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:24 pm to Walnut
The court issued the continuance (not even an actual signed order) itself sua sponte, i.e., on its own motion. There was no motion to continue that was filed, but there was likely a status conference with the judge where LSU Defendants' attorney (who just enrolled today) likely explained that most of the LSU Defendants still haven't even been served with the underlying lawsuit yet, so there's no basis yet to compel their appearance before that court, including for any hearing.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:24 pm to Obi Wan Ryobi
quote:No motion to continue was filed. More likely, it was a verbal request in open court.
TEXT ORDER. The hearing in this matter is continued. The court will reset the hearing by separate order. Signed by Judge Annemarie Carney Axon on 9/9/2026. (RLW) (Entered: 09/09/2026)
I have not seen anything to suggest who requested the continuance, but it is HIGHLY unlikely that the court granted it at the sole request of the "LSU" Defendants. It might have been the SEC alone, or it might have been a joint request.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:25 pm to TopWaterTiger
quote:
correct. Both parties have to agree to continue.
Not in federal court they don’t
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:28 pm to Salviati
I've seen very frequently in state court when an attorney just joins in, especially if it's early in proceedings that they'll grant a week or two continuance but usually the plaintiff will agree to it (or at least not object) just as a professional courtesy.
Not saying that's what happened, especially cause I've never been in fed court, but just that it's a possibility
Not saying that's what happened, especially cause I've never been in fed court, but just that it's a possibility
Posted on 9/9/26 at 2:26 pm to JayVegas702
quote:Sure, attorneys agree to continuances all of the time. I can't remember the last time I refused one.
I've seen very frequently in state court when an attorney just joins in, especially if it's early in proceedings that they'll grant a week or two continuance but usually the plaintiff will agree to it (or at least not object) just as a professional courtesy.
Not saying that's what happened, especially cause I've never been in fed court, but just that it's a possibility
But not typically for a TRO, and not one of this magnitude.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 2:29 pm to Salviati
quote:
But not typically for a TRO, and not one of this magnitude.
If service had not been properly completed, and the attorney just joined the case, wouldn't that be pretty standard, or would they still proceed even given those variables? Just curious your opinion...I understand a tro probably wouldn't even have the other party present in most situation
Posted on 9/9/26 at 2:31 pm to JayVegas702
What gets me is that she waited till 5 mins before the proceedings began.
I think she informally offered it as professional courtesy to SEC lawyer before pouring them out if it moved forward
I think she informally offered it as professional courtesy to SEC lawyer before pouring them out if it moved forward
Posted on 9/9/26 at 2:35 pm to H2O Tiger
quote:
For a TRO, only the plaintiff presents evidence.
They also filed a preliminary injunction which I believe was also set to be heard today
Posted on 9/9/26 at 2:35 pm to JayVegas702
quote:You can get an ex parte TRO in federal court.
If service had not been properly completed, and the attorney just joined the case, wouldn't that be pretty standard, or would they still proceed even given those variables? Just curious your opinion...I understand a tro probably wouldn't even have the other party present in most situation
Given the exigent nature of a TRO, the court's not going to wait for the defendant. Besides, a defendant can force a hearing to dissolve or modify an ex parte TRO on just two days' notice, or on even shorter notice if the court orders it.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 2:37 pm to H2O Tiger
This is factually incorrect. Both sides present evidence, otherwise what is the point of the hearing? Unless it is ex parte, which today's scheduled hearing was not.
This post was edited on 9/9/26 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 9/9/26 at 2:42 pm to Salviati
quote:
You can get an ex parte TRO in federal court.
Given the exigent nature of a TRO, the court's not going to wait for the defendant.
Figured as much. Thanks for the insight
Posted on 9/9/26 at 2:46 pm to White Tiger
Why would LSU agree to continue? Its obvious the SECs legal representation is a clownshow, along with Sankey... so this allows the SEC to seek consult in an attempt to navigate their heads out of their collective assholes.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News