Back and forth

[Triple B]

USF issues response to Leavitt lawsuit

May 03, 2010

Attorneys representing USF have filed a response to former coach Jim Leavitt's lawsuit against the university, asking a circuit court judge to dismiss the lawsuit's request for access to public records and to strike large portions of the lawsuit it contends are "legally insufficient or redundant, immaterial, impertinent and scandalous."

The motion, filed on April 26, asks for "all or portions" of 92 paragraphs -- nearly half Leavitt's original lawsuit -- to be removed, arguing among other things that "a complaint in a lawsuit is not a press release."

"The inclusion of these allegations, which are completely irrelevant to the elements of the plaintiff's causes of action, is consistent with the plaintiff's counsel's efforts to try their client's case in the press," the motion reads.

Among the contentions in Leavitt's lawsuit was that even if Leavitt were fired with cause, as USF has argued, that he would be entitled to $375,000 -- one-12th of his remaining contract -- rather than one-12th of his base salary, which amounts to $66,667 as USF's interpretation of his contract. "A plain reading of the Employment Agreement makes it clear" that the lesser amount applies, USF's attorneys write, citing a Florida precedent from 1963.

As to the public records aspect of the motion, Leavitt's attorneys, as well as the Times, have filed public records requests asking for all documents relating to the university's investigation. USF's response to the Times did not include any written notes or audio or video recordings from interviews with 29 players and other witnesses from the locker room in October, making the legal argument that such documents -- if they exist at all -- would not be subject to public records laws.

Leavitt was fired in January after a university investigation found that he grabbed walk-on running back Joel Miller by the throat and slapped him twice in the face during halftime of USF's Nov. 21 game against Louisville. Leavitt has denied those findings, but USF determined he had committed "serious violations" of its conduct policies, not only for the locker-room incident but for lying to investigators and interfering with the investigation.

USF has since hired former East Carolina coach Skip Holtz; Leavitt has not found another coaching job.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/usf/2010/05/usf-issues-response-to-leavitt-lawsuit.html

Leavitt's attorneys fire back at USF

By SCOTT CARTER | The Tampa Tribune

Published: May 5, 2010

TAMPA - Attorneys for Jim Leavitt threw the latest jab Tuesday in the back-and-forth legal battle between the University of South Florida and its former football coach.

Leavitt's primary attorney, Wil Florin, said he filed a motion Tuesday in Hillsborough County Circuit Court asking for an immediate evidentiary hearing regarding a public records request made to USF seeking material related to the school investigation that led to Leavitt's firing.

Florin's motion is in response to a USF motion filed April 26 to dismiss a large chunk of Leavitt's lawsuit, including the request for public records pertaining to the probe.

In the motion filed by attorney Rich McCrea, USF also contends portions of Leavitt's lawsuit are "either legally insufficient or redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous."

USF fired Leavitt with cause on Jan. 8 after a four-week university investigation into allegations he struck running back Joel Miller in the face and grabbed Miller by the throat during halftime of a Nov. 21 game. Leavitt sued the school in March, claiming the investigation and firing constituted a breach of contract.

USF officials will not comment on the legal proceedings until the case is concluded.

Meanwhile, Florin remains determined to force USF to turn over documents related to its investigation of Leavitt.

"Now that USF, a public institution, has been caught materially misrepresenting what key witnesses told investigators and the falsity of USF's public pronouncement that their termination process was fair, thorough and professional has been exposed, they are still going to extraordinary lengths to hide the truth from the public," Florin said in an e-mail Tuesday

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/may/05/sp-leavitts-attorneys-fire-back/sports-colleges-bulls/

[Who'sYourData?]

One day there will be a one page joint press release that there has been a settlement.  We'll never get answers to many of the questions remaining.

[cmhatter]

if his contract really states that he is only entitled to 300 something thousand... why don't they just give him the 300k and call it a day?

wonder why leavitt can't find work...

[Who'sYourData?]

if his contract really states that he is only entitled to 300 something thousand... why don't they just give him the 300k and call it a day?

If he would agree to go away for that amount I'm sure they would.  They'll outspend that in legal fees if it continues.  But the cat and mouse is that he and his lawyers are going to try to get more.  It's the way this country works.

Do you go into a new car lot and pay sticker price?

[Who'sYourData?]

if his contract really states that he is only entitled to 300 something thousand... why don't they just give him the 300k and call it a day?

If he would agree to go away for that amount I'm sure they would.  They'll outspend that in legal fees if it continues.  But the cat and mouse is that he and his lawyers are going to try to get more.  It's the way this country works.

Do you go into a new car lot and pay sticker price?

If USF had been willing to pay out any settlement to begin with there would not have been this whole dirty charade.  This entire dog and pony show has always been about firing a popular and successful coach without giving him his due process, contractual obligations and paying him what he is owed.  Why else would USF be holding back the full report?

If Leavitt were willing to accept any settlement, this would have been over long ago.  Would Leavitt accept a $100,000 settlement if it was offered?  $200,000? 

[2000bull]

if his contract really states that he is only entitled to 300 something thousand... why don't they just give him the 300k and call it a day?

If he would agree to go away for that amount I'm sure they would.  They'll outspend that in legal fees if it continues.  But the cat and mouse is that he and his lawyers are going to try to get more.  It's the way this country works.

Do you go into a new car lot and pay sticker price?

If USF had been willing to pay out any settlement to begin with there would not have been this whole dirty charade.  This entire dog and pony show has always been about firing a popular and successful coach without giving him his due process, contractual obligations and paying him what he is owed.  Why else would USF be holding back the full report?

If Leavitt were willing to accept any settlement, this would have been over long ago.  Would Leavitt accept a $100,000 settlement if it was offered?  $200,000? 

i thought he just wanted his job back?  ;D

[Who'sYourData?]

i thought he just wanted his job back?  ;D

It's never about the money.  :

[smazza]

i would have fired leavitt immediately upon confirming he hit  the kid

woolard showing restraint and patience did his due diligence

[Who'sYourData?]

If Leavitt were willing to accept any settlement, this would have been over long ago.  Would Leavitt accept a $100,000 settlement if it was offered?  $200,000? 

Why would he be willing to do that?

If your employer owes you $1,000 a week in salary and onh payday they came to you and asked you to accept $200 instead why wouldn't you do it?

[Bull-by-Marriage]

USF issues response to Leavitt lawsuit

May 03, 2010

Attorneys representing USF have filed a response to former coach Jim Leavitt's lawsuit against the university, asking a circuit court judge to dismiss the lawsuit's request for access to public records and to strike large portions of the lawsuit it contends are "legally insufficient or redundant, immaterial, impertinent and scandalous."

The motion, filed on April 26, asks for "all or portions" of 92 paragraphs -- nearly half Leavitt's original lawsuit -- to be removed, arguing among other things that "a complaint in a lawsuit is not a press release."

"The inclusion of these allegations, which are completely irrelevant to the elements of the plaintiff's causes of action, is consistent with the plaintiff's counsel's efforts to try their client's case in the press," the motion reads.

Among the contentions in Leavitt's lawsuit was that even if Leavitt were fired with cause, as USF has argued, that he would be entitled to $375,000 -- one-12th of his remaining contract -- rather than one-12th of his base salary, which amounts to $66,667 as USF's interpretation of his contract. "A plain reading of the Employment Agreement makes it clear" that the lesser amount applies, USF's attorneys write, citing a Florida precedent from 1963.

As to the public records aspect of the motion, Leavitt's attorneys, as well as the Times, have filed public records requests asking for all documents relating to the university's investigation. USF's response to the Times did not include any written notes or audio or video recordings from interviews with 29 players and other witnesses from the locker room in October, making the legal argument that such documents -- if they exist at all -- would not be subject to public records laws.

Leavitt was fired in January after a university investigation found that he grabbed walk-on running back Joel Miller by the throat and slapped him twice in the face during halftime of USF's Nov. 21 game against Louisville. Leavitt has denied those findings, but USF determined he had committed "serious violations" of its conduct policies, not only for the locker-room incident but for lying to investigators and interfering with the investigation.

USF has since hired former East Carolina coach Skip Holtz; Leavitt has not found another coaching job.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/usf/2010/05/usf-issues-response-to-leavitt-lawsuit.html

Leavitt's attorneys fire back at USF

By SCOTT CARTER | The Tampa Tribune

Published: May 5, 2010

TAMPA - Attorneys for Jim Leavitt threw the latest jab Tuesday in the back-and-forth legal battle between the University of South Florida and its former football coach.

Leavitt's primary attorney, Wil Florin, said he filed a motion Tuesday in Hillsborough County Circuit Court asking for an immediate evidentiary hearing regarding a public records request made to USF seeking material related to the school investigation that led to Leavitt's firing.

Florin's motion is in response to a USF motion filed April 26 to dismiss a large chunk of Leavitt's lawsuit, including the request for public records pertaining to the probe.

In the motion filed by attorney Rich McCrea, USF also contends portions of Leavitt's lawsuit are "either legally insufficient or redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous."

USF fired Leavitt with cause on Jan. 8 after a four-week university investigation into allegations he struck running back Joel Miller in the face and grabbed Miller by the throat during halftime of a Nov. 21 game. Leavitt sued the school in March, claiming the investigation and firing constituted a breach of contract.

USF officials will not comment on the legal proceedings until the case is concluded.

Meanwhile, Florin remains determined to force USF to turn over documents related to its investigation of Leavitt.

"Now that USF, a public institution, has been caught materially misrepresenting what key witnesses told investigators and the falsity of USF's public pronouncement that their termination process was fair, thorough and professional has been exposed, they are still going to extraordinary lengths to hide the truth from the public," Florin said in an e-mail Tuesday

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/may/05/sp-leavitts-attorneys-fire-back/sports-colleges-bulls/

Thank you Trip. B. You provided info without comment. I appreciate that. Just felt like that needed to be stated.