Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
March 14 hearing results
Topic Started: Mar 14 2014, 02:08 PM (177 Views)
Quasimodo

Quote:
 


Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR: Status Conference held on 3/14/2014. For the reasons stated in open court, the parties are advised that this matter shall be held in abeyance for a period of sixty (60) days and shall be placed back on the Court's calendar for Status Conference after the expiration of sixty (60) days;

the parties are further advised that the Court will consider all pending motions that are presently before the Court.

(Attorney(s) Christopher Manning, Charles Davant, IV, and Christopher Fialko appeared on behalf of plaintiffs; Attorney(s) Reginald Gillespie, Edwin Speas, Eric Stevens, Joel Craig, Henry Sappenfield, and Jim Craven appeared on behalf of defendants; defendant LINWOOD E. WILSON appeared pro se in Evans v. The City of Durham, North Carolina (1:07CV739); Attorney(s) Robert Ekstrand and Stefanie Sparks appeared on behalf of plaintiffs; Attorney(s) Dixie Wells, Paul Sun, Dan McLamb, Allison Becker, Reginald Gillespie, Edwin Speas, Eric Stevens, Henry Sappenfield, and Joel Craig appeared on behalf of defendants; defendant LINWOOD E. WILSON appeared pro se in McFadyen v. Duke University (1:07CV953);


Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 14 2014, 02:09 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo


I assume that "all pending motions" include summary judgment motions;

and also, I assume that it is POSSIBLE (though I have no certainty of this) that the impending
publication of a book about the case, in which some of the principals are presumed to have given
interviews, may affect the parties' responses.


(pure speculation)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Wade

Quasimodo
Mar 14 2014, 02:09 PM

I assume that "all pending motions" include summary judgment motions;

and also, I assume that it is POSSIBLE (though I have no certainty of this) that the impending
publication of a book about the case, in which some of the principals are presumed to have given
interviews, may affect the parties' responses.


(pure speculation)

No, that's not what's going on at all:

http://www.heraldsun.com/news/showcase/x1001077093/Settlement-talks-underway-in-Duke-lacrosse-case

Settlement talks underway in Duke lacrosse case

Mar. 14, 2014 @ 05:39 PM
Ray Gronberg

DURHAM —
Lawyers told a federal judge on Friday that they’re working on a deal to settle the first of the lawsuits against the city spawned by the Duke lacrosse case.

Talks occurred as recently as Thursday, and may bear fruit in the next few weeks, they said.

“We feel we’re close, but not quite there,” said Chris Manning, an attorney who represents David Evans, a co-captain of Duke University’s 2005-06 men’s lacrosse team.

Manning was addressing U.S. District Court Judge James Beaty Jr., who’d preside over any trial of the remaining two lawsuits triggered by the abortive prosecution in 2006 of Evans and two other lacrosse players on what turned out to be a false charge of rape.

One of the city’s lawyers, Reggie Gillespie, joined Manning in confirming talks he said “could be dispositive” of the initial lawsuit “regarding the city defendants.”

Evans and two other players indicted in 2006, Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, sued the city, its police and former District Attorney Mike Nifong after their exoneration a year later.

They allege city officials and Nifong conspired to frame them, violating their civil rights along the way.

A federal appeals court late in 2012 threw out the players’ civil-rights claims, but allowed them to continue a malicious-prosecution case against two detectives, Nifong and Linwood Wilson, a former staff investigator for Nifong.

The lawyers traveled to Winston-Salem on Friday for a conference requested by Beaty. At its start, he told them he’d wanted to “see where we are” following the 2012 appellate court ruling and the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection last year of the players’ bid to resurrect their civil-rights claims.

The discussion also covered a second lawsuit, one filed in 2007 by three unindicted players represented by Durham lawyer Bob Ekstrand that targets Duke University and the Duke University Health System, along with the city and its police.

And on the second case, there were fewer hints of a settlement. Ekstrand said some talks have occurred, but a lawyer for Duke Health said mediation with his clients reached an impasse.

Manning, handling the morning’s presentation for Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann, told Beaty that lawyers wanted a 30- to 45-day postponement of the proceedings to buy time for more talks.

He also said it’s possible the various sides, if they can’t make a deal on their own, will ask Beaty or another judge to preside over a formal settlement conference to help move things along.

Beaty responded with a 60-day postponement, specifying that he and the attorneys should continue to work on pre-trial motions.

He also said he wants to resolve the cases this year.

Wilson, the only plaintiff or defendant in the lawsuits to attend Friday’s conference, told Beaty he agrees on that.

“It’s been seven years,” said Wilson, who’s acted as his own lawyer. “We need to get it on.”

It wasn’t clear Friday whether a settlement of the Evans/Finnerty/Seligmann lawsuit would also cover Nifong. The former DA’s lawyer, Jim Craven, complained of feeling left out.

“I’m intrigued by the fact discussions are going on,” he said after Manning and Gillespie disclosed the talks. “My phone has not rung yet.”

Nifong isn’t a target of the lawsuit from Ekstrand’s clients.

The details of any settlement that pertain to the city will be public, as state law bars local governments from agreeing to terms-undisclosed deals in civil litigation except in medical-malpractice cases.

Perhaps coincidentally, Friday’s conference occurred eight years to the day an escort-service stripper, Crystal Mangum, triggered the lacrosse prosecution by telling authorities she’d been raped at a team party.

Beaty initially wanted to hold the conference in January, but lawyers for the players begged off, citing scheduling conflicts. They asked him to reschedule to one of two days this week, Friday being the second of the options they provided.

A third lawsuit, filed in 2008 by 38 unindicted players, already ended. That group first settled with Duke, and then abandoned its claims against city officials after the Supreme Court’s decision.
Edited by Jack Wade, Mar 14 2014, 04:57 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
He also said it’s possible the various sides, if they can’t make a deal on their own, will ask Beaty or another judge to preside over a formal settlement conference to help move things along.


Interesting if another judge other than Beaty can be found. (Beaty is pretty much retiring in June, IIRC; although he will probably retain control over cases in progress.)

If there is a settlement during the summer, school will be out, so the discussion on the Duke campus will be minimal (although that might be the case anyway.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
“It’s been seven years,” said Wilson, who’s acted as his own lawyer. “We need to get it on.”


Make a note, that nearly half of that time was Beaty making up his mind on the motion to dismiss.

Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 14 2014, 05:15 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Wade

Quasimodo
Mar 14 2014, 05:12 PM
Quote:
 
“It’s been seven years,” said Wilson, who’s acted as his own lawyer. “We need to get it on.”


Make a note, that nearly half of that time was Beaty making up his mind on the motion to dismiss.

Nope, it was 10 months in the Evans case from the time the lawyers completed their initial round of filings to the time Beaty handed down his ruling. Remember the plaintiffs twice amended their complaint, which recycled many of the filing deadlines.

Arguably also 2013 was wasted on the Supreme Court process.

05/04/2010 Motions Submitted: 125 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, 124 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, 120 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, 126 MOTION to Dismiss, 119 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, 127 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, 117 MOTION to Dismiss OF MICHAEL B. NIFONG, 123 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, 121 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint to CHIEF JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR. (Kemp, Donita) (Entered: 05/04/2010)

03/31/2011 133 MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by CHIEF JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR on 3/31/11, that the Motions to Dismiss [Doc. # 117 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set out herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City of Durham's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 78 ] is DENIED at this time, without prejudice to the City raising the issues asserted therein as part of a comprehensive Motion for Summary Judgment at the close of discovery. A separate Order will be entered contemporaneously herewith. (Law, Trina). (Entered: 03/31/2011)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply