- Joined
- May 17, 2019
I don’t know what much of that means, but I trust you AnOm.This is a nothingburger. The dismissal was based on procedural grounds and did not really address the merits of the case, but that the proper notice had not been given prior to filing. Additionally, the request for an injunction was mooted by the fact the track season they were suing over was cancelled thanks to the coof.
And the request for monetary relief was denied for technical procedural reasons (lack or insufficiency of required notice to defendants) that are best explained by the ruling itself. They're not really amenable to summary in normal human language.
Here's the ruling if anyone is interested. It's short and sweet.
The one point where I may disagree with the judge is denying the plaintiffs' request to revise records of sporting events to reflect that the plaintiffs would have won had it not been for a troon, finding that they hadn't demonstrated actual harm from the records as they are or that the harm would actually be repaired by revising the records. The plaintiffs alleged that they would be disadvantaged in the future for job prospects, scholarships and other benefits. I'm not sure the judge was wrong here. He didn't really find such a harm couldn't exist, just that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently or specifically pled some actual rather than speculative harm.