Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law v. American Bar Association (TV1)
Filing
32
NOTICE by Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Permanent Injunction, 5 Memorandum in Support of Motion of Filing of Supplemental Authorities (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: ABA Internal Operating Practices 5)(Watson, Robert)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
LINCOLN MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY,
DUNCAN SCHOOL OF LAW,
)
3:11-CV-608
) Case No.
)
)
) Judge Varlan
) Magistrate Judge Shirley
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff
v.
THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION,
Defendant
NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
Duncan School of Law (“DSOL”) submits the following supplemental authority bearing
on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies: Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137, 143-147
(1993). The exhaustion issue is discussed at pages 13-15 of Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and For Preliminary and Permanent injunction (Doc. # 2). In Darby, the
United States Supreme Court held that a party must exhaust administrative remedies
“only (original emphasis) when expressly required
by statute or when an agency rule requires appeal
before review and the administrative action is made
inoperative pending review. Courts are not free to
impose an exhaustion requirement as a rule of
judicial administration where the agency action has
already become ‘final’ under § 10(c).
509 U.S. at 154. The court also held that the use of the word “may” as related to the option of an
appeal, does not mean “must,” and no exhaustion is required. Darby, 509 U.S at 150.; Bangura
v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 487, 498 (6th Cir. 2006). As pointed out by Plaintiff’s counsel during oral
1
137802.00601/50416564v.2
argument and in Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. #2, p. 14), Rule 10(a) of the ABA uses the word “may”
in reference to an appeal from the Council decision. In addition, the ABA treated this decision as
final by publicizing it in contravention of its own rules. See, ABA Internal Operating Practices 5
(attached hereto as Exhibit A).
Respectfully submitted,
WATSON ROACH BATSON ROWELL
& LAUDERBACK
/s/ Robert H. Watson, Jr.
Robert H. Watson, Jr. (001702)
Attorneys at Law
1500 Riverview Tower
900 South Gay Street
P.O. Box 131
Knoxville, TN 37901-0131
Telephone:
(865) 637-1700
Facsimile:
(865) 525-2514
Email:
rwatson@watsonroach.com
BLANK ROME LLP
/s/ Michael L. Cioffi
Michael L. Cioffi (0031098)
1700 PNC Center
201 East Fifth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone:
(513) 362-8700
Facsimile:
(513) 362-8702
Email:
cioffi@blankrome.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
2
137802.00601/50416564v.2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on January 12, 2012, I am filing the foregoing Notice via the Court’s
CM/ECF which will automatically generate a Notice of Electronic Filing that will be emailed to
the following registered Filing Users:
Anne E. Rea
Sidley Austin LLP (Chicago)
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
P. Alexander Vogel
O’Neil, Parker & Williamson
7610 Gleason Drive, Suite 200
Knoxville, TN 37919
Howard H. Vogel
O’Neil, Parker & Williamson
7610 Gleason Drive, Suite 200
Knoxville, TN 37919
Patricia J. Larson
American Bar Association
321 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Jeffrey R. Thompson
O’Neil, Parker & Williamson
7610 Gleason Drive, Suite 200
Knoxville, TN 37919
Stephanie A. Giggetts
American Bar Association
321 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Linda R. Friedlieb
Sidley Austin LLP (Chicago)
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Michael P. Doss
Sidley Austin LLP (Chicago)
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
/s/ Robert H. Watson, Jr.
Robert H. Watson, Jr. (001702)
Attorneys at Law
1500 Riverview Tower
900 South Gay Street
P.O. Box 131
Knoxville, TN 37901-0131
Telephone:
(865) 637-1700
Facsimile:
(865) 525-2514
Email:
rwatson@watsonroach.com
3
137802.00601/50416564v.2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?