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)

Download PDF
  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?