BIG Salazar/NOP claims in lawsuit!

Maybe taken individually the allegations don't seem worthy discussion, but certainly, you cannot claim that an ex-employee (or independent contractor, or whatever he was) of Nike, suing Nike and a few big wig individuals is not worthy of discussion... I mean you can, but then you sound like a "fan boy", "shill", "PR guy", etc...

From a neutral legal aspect - this complaint is poorly drafted and should be dismissed. Complaints are supposed to be short, sweet, and to the point and avoid the 'salacious' details. Judges hate that and the main reason lawyers throw them in are to garner publicity.

The First Amended Complaint was dismissed for these reasons. I wonder if this same complaint, filed in December, 2013 will be dismissed for the same reasons.

Say it's true that Galen Rupp doped and Salazar/Joanie/others doped - that does not give a reason why Mr. Lyden has somehow been harmed for which he is due compensation.

Lyden even threw in a paragraph that Nike has the best runners in the world who go to this same magical doctor who doped them up. He would have to prove that they would NOT be the best runners in without the drugs. Then he has to show he was injured or damaged somehow because of that.

Ugh, I want my 10 minutes back from reading that pile of crap. The order dismissing the First Amended Complaint noted that the FAC was 2300 pages long. Any judge will be ACHING to find a reason to dismiss a complaint like that.

Also -

Read the opening paragraph.

The original complaint dismissed common law claims upon a motion from Nike. The Judge agreed and invited plaintiff to file a motion that both stated claims for relief and complied with the rules.

Plaintiff filed 2300 pages of dribble.

Document 22 - Order from the Court, sua sponte (meaning the judge did it on his own without any motion from Nike), dismissing the First Amended Complaint and giving 14 days to refile. 11/25/13

Second Amended Complaint filed on December 13. Probably still the same crap.

I hope this gets dismissed because the plaintiff is an idiot.

Fast Action Jackson wrote:

Maybe taken individually the allegations don't seem worthy discussion, but certainly, you cannot claim that an ex-employee (or independent contractor, or whatever he was) of Nike, suing Nike and a few big wig individuals is not worthy of discussion... I mean you can, but then you sound like a "fan boy", "shill", "PR guy", etc...

It sounds as though you're not very familiar with the court system. I am.

It's very easy for a disgruntled ex-employee, contractor, or consultant to file a pro se complaint against "Nike and a few big wig individuals." All it takes is a filing fee, and even that can be waived upon a showing of indigency. The legal system is buried in these kinds of lawsuits, and whatever merit there may be in any particular such lawsuit is often lost in a sea of irrelevant and hyperbolic allegations and frivolous legal claims.

Any good lawyer would have told this guy that, if he really wanted serious consideration of his intellectual property claims, he should get rid of the stuff about doping. Maybe one did, and the guy just didn't take the advice. I'm confident that Nike's lawyers were delighted to see all of that stuff about doping in the second amended complaint, even after the district court judge dismissed the first amended complaint with a warning about burdening the court with legally irrelevant allegations.

The same plaintiff sued Addidas for patent stuff. He lost. I think he is a tad loopy.

Per SOn wrote:

The same plaintiff sued Addidas for patent stuff. He lost. I think he is a tad loopy.

According to his LinkedIn page, the Adidas case was settled out of court.

"In 2010, filed a lawsuit for patent infringement against Adidas regarding the “Tunit” soccer shoe which was settled out of court..."

Well Clarence Darrow, you certainly are not very good at following the scope of a discussion, but perhaps, you are better at arguing parking violations in the courtroom... I digress, the point is that this is worth talking about... Christ, Malmo commented and verified that this wasn't just some small time disgruntled employee... either way, please impress me with more of your knowledge on the federal court system and civil procedure, instead of discussing what is actually happening here

Anyone know if Dick Brown is still alive? I just happen to have known that he had a type of Leukemia and that he was basically terminally ill. I would actually be somewhat surprised if he is still with us.

bump

Copw;l wrote:

Implicating Joan Benoit is harsh... she will get on here and clear things up. That would be devastating if she doped.

Read it a little more carefully and you will see that Joan didn't bite.

Track Historian wrote:

Copw;l wrote:

Implicating Joan Benoit is harsh... she will get on here and clear things up. That would be devastating if she doped.

Read it a little more carefully and you will see that Joan didn't bite.

All this could very well take the whole NOP program down.

Keepin it Real wrote:

Track Historian wrote:

Read it a little more carefully and you will see that Joan didn't bite.

All this could very well take the whole NOP program down.

Read this thread a little more carefully and you will see why this guy can't be taken seriously.

The allergy medications kind of raise a red flag. I heard about those being stumbled upon in Galen Rupp's refrigerator's freezer in Park City about 8-9 years ago.

hedge pedge wrote:

The allergy medications kind of raise a red flag. I heard about those being stumbled upon in Galen Rupp's refrigerator's freezer in Park City about 8-9 years ago.

Oh, yeah, and I'm sure there's no way a scrawny white kid like Rupp could ever have allergies. I mean, being a good athlete means he has no other issues with his body. I'm sure.

Didn't Rupp get a lot of flack for wearing a pollen mask in a track race? Oh wait, he did.

http://media.oregonlive.com/trackandfield_impact/photo/galen-rupp-maskjpg-c508124cc23bc4f8.jpg

Also, doesn't liquid allergy medicine used for injection have to be refrigerated? Oh wait, it does.

http://www.tampaent.com/webdocuments/home-maintenance-shots5-1.pdf

You guys cynical to no end.