http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/Aggies-Defensive-Coordinator-Sues-LSU-AM-Over-Contract-Issue-294421891.html

Pretty straight forward. Chavis' attorney files the suit to resolve the contract dispute between A&M, LSU, and Chavis as soon as possible.

Pretty interesting case actually, but I imagine it'll be settled quickly.

Awesome!

The dispute is really between A&M and LSU in terms of whether the 400K penalty applies, but if Chavis brings the suit he can bring it in district court and have it quickly resolved.

quote:

---

A&M is in the suit so that the case can be heard in Brazos County, rather than having to bring it in Louisiana.

---

Also eliminates the need to bring the case to Federal Court, as Chavis and A&M are located in the same state.

quote:

---

quote:

---

A&M is in the suit so that the case can be heard in Brazos County, rather than having to bring it in Louisiana.

---

Also eliminates the need to bring the case to Federal Court, as Chavis and A&M are located in the same state.

---

ergo, the reference to Brazos County, where there are no federal courts.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

A&M is in the suit so that the case can be heard in Brazos County, rather than having to bring it in Louisiana.

---

Also eliminates the need to bring the case to Federal Court, as Chavis and A&M are located in the same state.

---

ergo, the reference to Brazos County, where there are no federal courts.

---

Sure, I was just spelling it out is all.

Someone explain this to me in a way that makes sense.

quote:

---

Someone explain this to me in a way that makes sense.

---

LSU thinks they're owed money.
A&M doesn't, and isn't paying it.
LSU demands money from Chavis, he doesn't want to pay so tells the other two to sort it out.

























I think.

John Chavis is in a dispute with LSU over the 400K penalty in his contract. A&M is also refusing to pay the penalty, as is Chavis, because they both say LSU is not entitled to it.

If Chavis had filed his suit only against LSU, he likely would have had to file it in Louisiana, and it would have been moved to Federal Court, because they are two parties located in opposite states (with over 75K in damages).

So, Chavis adds A&M for two reasons, one, so he can file in Brazos County, where A&M is located, at at the state district court level, and two, if for some reason it went all the way to bench trial (I assume no jury trial in contract disputes) and he wins, A&M would be held in judgment to pay the 400K fee.

But I doubt any of that happens.

Nothing to see here.....A&M will pay whatever is owed, they just don't think Chavis owes anything. so Chavis was advised to bring forth the suit and include A&M to get jurisdiction and let a judge sort it out.

Couldnt A&M just claim sovereign immunity? I guess that still keeps the suit in TX

quote:

---

Couldnt A&M just claim sovereign immunity? I guess that still keeps the suit in TX

---

I am betting A&M consented to the suit. And I hope LSU files a notice of removal. The Houston Federal Courthouse is literally across the street from my office. I'd go to that hearing.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

A&M is in the suit so that the case can be heard in Brazos County, rather than having to bring it in Louisiana.

---

Also eliminates the need to bring the case to Federal Court, as Chavis and A&M are located in the same state.

---

ergo, the reference to Brazos County, where there are no federal courts.

---

Would you you too shut the **** up with that law talk.

Smart strategy.

Can the lawyers tell us if Chief being an employee of LSU until Feb 4 is going to be an issue as he was clearly recruiting for Sumlin before that.

quote:

---

On January 5, Chavis says he turned in this 30-day notice to terminate the contract without
cause, making his last day February 4.

---

arbitration or GTFO

I believe Chavis' lawyer is Bill Youngkin, former Aggie yell leader

quote:

---

Deduct it from the tab those coonasses still owe us for breaking the contract back in the 90s

---

This is quickly becoming the new Buckley. And I love it

Tell them to put it against the $400K they owe us from the nineties for being ******* and breaking the game contract.

That money, over time, should be close to $750K by now.

Go eat grass, swamp rats...


<dangit, jock...>

Does the typical statute of limitations apply to the claim from the 90s? It might not since this is a state entity.

I thought the same thing about LSU breaking the football contract. They can just keep the money they never intended to pay and call it even.

This one probably does not go LSU's way. Seems like he and A&M waited to officially announce his move for a very specific reason.

If his effective Termination date with LSU was Feb 4th was he recruiting for us as an LSU employee before then? Weird and maybe problematic.

quote:

---

arbitration or GTFO

---

30-day amicable discussion period before binding arbitration with the AAA or GTFO.

So how can someone give a 30 day notice and then immediately start working for the new employer and think they don't need to buy out their contract?

Hmm, considering Brick Haley left LSU a few weeks after signing a new contract with a buy-out clause, I assumed Alleva had settled with Chavis. Apparently, I was wrong.

A&M being named a defendant is a curious move in some respects, as A&M was not a party to the contract at issue. (in the Wickline mess, tu isn't a party, yet.)


Unless there is some reference in his contract with A&M to the LSU contract and an indemnification clause. In which case, adding A&M makes sense for both subject matter and jurisdictional reasons.