MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments in the trademark infringement case between sports artist Daniel Moore and the University of Alabama, whose football program is portrayed in a number of his works.

They present their cases to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta on Thursday.

The university filed suit in 2005 alleging that Moore violated trademark law in painting scenes from football games by showing Crimson Tide players in their crimson and white uniforms without permission.

The suit also contends that Moore reissued previously licensed prints without paying royalties.

A federal judge’s ruling in 2009 found that Moore’s paintings and prints were protected but that other items — like coffee mugs — weren’t. Both sides appealed.

“The University of Alabama believes the court ruled correctly when it found that Daniel Moore and his company engaged in activities that infringe on the University’s trademarks,” university spokeswoman Deborah Lane said in a statement. “While we regret the necessity of having to involve the courts in this matter, the lawsuit was necessary since UA must protect the value and reputation of our trademarks, name, colors, indicia and logos, by determining who uses them, as well as when and how they are used.”

Moore denied violating trademark laws and said his art constitutes free speech protected by the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Propst ruled in 2009 that Moore’s paintings did not violate trademark law, but he said Moore’s sale of paintings on mugs, T-shirts and other items did infringe on Alabama’s trademark.

“We loved the district judge’s ruling that said my paintings and large prints have not, do not and will not infringe on the University of Alabama trademarks,” Moore said. “That was the meat and potatoes of the whole suit.

The Birmingham artist calls the products covered in Propst’s ruling “incidental items” that are “a very small part of our business in terms of dollars and cents.

“But they function in ways that promote the art and the artist,” he said.

Moore’s paintings and prints depict some pivotal moments in Alabama sports history, including “The Goal Line Stand” from the 1979 Sugar Bowl against Penn State. He is working on “The Shutout” from last season’s national championship game, a 21-0 victory over LSU.

Moore’s works have also included schools like Auburn, Tennessee and Mississippi and sports figures such as Bo Jackson and Bobby Bowden.

Moore contends it is a free speech issue and that his work depicting players in uniform is protected by the First Amendment “just like Sports Illustrated.”

“There is no difference when you’re documenting and reporting on an event like that,” he said.

Lane said the University of Alabama has licensing agreements with some 600 business owners and that supporters want to buy products “that benefit the university they love rather than an unlicensed competitor.

“The university asks that businesses — like (Moore’s) New Life Art — that profit from the university’s name and reputation pay a few cents in licensing fees out of each dollar they receive from the sale of merchandise bearing university trademarks,” she said. “These licensing fees fund academic scholarships for UA students.”

Moore’s attorney, Stephen Heninger, argues that Moore’s works are not covered in trademark law.

“All they are saying is any time anywhere, our marks show, somebody has to pay us,” Heninger said. “And that’s not what trademark law says. What they’re trying to gain here is an expansion of trademark law.

“The law of trademark infringement is if you use somebody else’s mark to try to pass their work off as yours, that’s a trademark violation.”

Heninger said more than 30 law school professors have filed friend of the court beliefs on Moore’s behalf. Alabama has the backing of some 27 universities, which Heninger said are, like Alabama, represented by Collegiate Licensing Company.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKRKQnzkE1j0YF57sALadjAP7Crw?docId=212f4bee04504f19adbd30c6f003da61

4953417-2

Published: January 30, 2012

In the specialized field of sports art, Daniel Moore is well known for his paintings of the University of Alabama football team in action. But he soon may become similarly recognizable in legal circles as his fight against the university’s charge of copyright infringement heads to the Alabama Appeals Court.

The lawsuit, which Moore has been contesting since 2005, seeks to prevent him from selling posters made from his paintings without first obtaining a license from the university. In November 2009, a United States District Court in Birmingham ruled largely in his favor and against the university. The outcome of Thursday’s Appeals Court hearing could set a precedent in the world of sports art.

Moore paints scenes and sells poster and inkjet print versions of them that range in price from $35 to $3,000, depending on whether the image is printed on paper or canvas, and is signed and/or numbered. His 1992 work “The Tradition Continues,” which commemorated a national championship season, sold 19,920 prints and posters.

For Moore, the issue, he said, is one of “free speech, my right to paint what I want and sell my work.” But the university has accused him of trading on its name and the accomplishment of its football teams without permission, infringing on university trademarks by depicting its recognizable uniform, logo and other insignia.

Trademarks are words, logos or images that specifically symbolize or refer to a company’s products and services. Infringement occurs when they are used without authorization. According to Moore, University of Alabama officials stipulated during a meeting in 2002 that he pay an 8 percent royalty for both new work and everything university-related he had done since 1979.

The case is of great interest to “artists all over the country whose free speech rights should not be subject to licensing arrangements by colleges and universities,” said Mark P. McKenna, a law professor at Notre Dame who was part of a group of professors that wrote a friend-of-the-court brief to the Appeals Court on Moore’s behalf.

No less interested in the outcome is the Atlanta-based Collegiate Licensing Company, which wrote a friend-of-the-court brief on the university’s behalf. A spokeswoman for the company said the overall retail market for collegiate licensed products is valued at $4.3 billion a year, less than 1 percent of which is in the “art category.”

The District Court Judge Robert Propst wrote in his 2009 ruling that there was no reason for buyers of Moore’s prints to assume that the products were licensed and endorsed by the university. Rather, he wrote, “it is likely that people who buy the Moore paintings do so, at least partially, because of their loyalty to the University of Alabama and its football team.”

The judge, however, did prohibit Moore from selling his images on products of a more commercial nature, like coffee mugs and calendars, without obtaining a license from the university, and his ruling was vague on the number of prints in an edition that the artist could create.

Steve Heninger, Moore’s lawyer, said Moore was appealing that aspect of Propst’s decision.

“All of our art is copyrighted, and copyright gives us the right to do derivative works on coffee mugs, calendars” and other items, he said.

The university, too, is appealing. Deborah Lane, Alabama’s assistant vice president for university relations, said it was seeking to protect “the value and reputation of our trademarks, name, colors, indicia and logos, by determining who uses them, as well as when and how they are used.”

She said that the university has about 600 licensing agreements under which businesses that “profit from the university’s name and reputation pay a few cents in licensing fees out of each dollar they receive from the sale of merchandise bearing university trademarks.” She said the fees finance academic scholarships.

Moore, who lives in Hoover, Ala., and graduated from Alabama in 1976, views his paintings as a form of loyalty to the university. He believes that for more than two decades the university perceived his work as good publicity for the football program and for the university. Athletic directors gave him sideline passes and permitted him to borrow items (old game programs, helmets, jerseys, trophies) from the university’s Paul W. Bryant Museum that he used in his paintings.

In 1999, however, the university proposed a plan for Moore to pay a licensing fee for all his images of the football team, which he declined to accept. In 2001, Moore was barred from the sidelines, although he continued to paint Alabama football scenes, and none of the five judges who had heard the case between 2005 and 2009 ever issued an injunction preventing him from doing so.

Moore said he received cease-and-desist letters from university lawyers whenever he produced a new edition. He said he would have lost money had he signed a licensing agreement because the N.C.A.A. does not allow member institutions to license products containing the likenesses of student athletes who are eligible to play in varsity games. One of the five images Moore created for his 2009 season series included the running back and Heisman Trophy winner Mark Ingram, then a junior with another year of eligibility.

Moore said that licensing would limit his freedom to choose subjects and require approval of university officials as well as perhaps anyone whose likeness he used, including referees.

“There would be painting by committee,” he said. “Can I do this? What do you think alumni would like to see more?” He added, “It’s a slippery slope down that path.”

Fighting a major university is not for the faint of heart or light of wallet. Moore noted that his legal fees have reached hundreds of thousands of dollars.

During the last seven years, Moore said that he had been “fearful, concerned that I might owe Alabama a lot of money if the university had won.”

“It was a sword of Damocles hanging over my head,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/sports/ncaafootball/artist-still-fighting-alabama-over-football-paintings.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/1/25/2735166/mike-leach-lawyer-finebaum-craig-james-espn-lawsuit

Article courtesy of sbnation.com

Mike Leach’s new lawyer stayed on the offensive this week, taking his tour to — where else? — Paul Finebaum’s show on Wednesday. In just about a week of work, Stephen Heninger, formerly lawyer for Mike Price and current lead attorney for Leach, has already sent out a press release accusing Craig James of making conflicting statements and called into The Finebaum Show. There’s probably not a better way to get started than this.

Heninger’s appearance on Finebaum was a lot of the same, with updates on the two cases Leach is pursuing and more on James’ role in the whole ordeal. Right now, the suit against Texas Tech is waiting for a sovereign immunity ruling, and the suit against ESPN, Spaeth Communications and James is waiting on the Texas Tech case. It’s all intertwined and all waiting on the complicated sovereign immunity issue.

As soon as the Texas Supreme Court rules on whether Texas Tech’s sovereign immunity will be upheld, Leach can pursue the rest of his lawsuits. No matter what happens, he’ll be free to continue pursuing James, ESPN and Spaeth, and his lawyer intends to do so right away.

Heninger said they have an “incredibly good case” against ESPN, James and Spaeth. He plans to re-depose Craig James, Adam James, Joe Schad and the ESPN players once they get the green light, following some kind of resolution on the sovereign immunity front.

And then there was this fun quote about Craig James and his role in pushing for Adam James’ playing time.

“Any of us that have coached little league are familiar with helicopter dads and the people that are railbirds. That was Craig James. He was calling coaches from the booth during games and telling them to put Adam in and to let him play, disrupting games even.”

This seems like an exercise in futility — Leach carries a scrap of paper and a headset to the booth during games; is he really going to have a cell phone? — but Heninger was adamant James was trying. He said the former ESPN analyst would leave voicemails with the assistant coaches, pressuring them to play Adam James more. But when Leach threatened to play those voicemails to the team, Adam James asked that he not — a request Leach honored, Heninger said.

Heninger seems dead-set on pursuing both cases with gusto, so the next few months should be fun, especially as James tries to clear his name, perhaps resulting in him digging a deeper hole.

Full audio of Heninger’s appearance can be found here.

By Jon Soloman

Article courtesy of al.com

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama — What’s an Alabama national championship without another Daniel Moore painting? The latest one revealed this week will be called “Restoring the Order.”

Now, if only order got restored to Moore’s career.

The University of Alabama’s embarrassing lawsuit against Moore over trademark rights remains alive seven years later.

Moore won the heart of the case in 2009 when a federal judge ruled that painting Crimson Tide uniforms didn’t infringe on the university’s trade dress. Moore lost the right to reproduce his copyrighted paintings on coffee mugs and calendars. So Alabama and Moore each appealed, and oral arguments will be heard Feb. 2 in Atlanta.

Alabama’s PR nightmare continues while fighting art as free speech and a popular artist whose paintings since 1979 helped shape the Crimson Tide’s storied history. Even Alabama President Robert Witt acknowledged in his 2008 deposition that university supporters he heard from “predominantly” opposed the lawsuit.

Instead, Alabama used deep pockets to try to bleed Moore, who said his defense has cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. He’s not exactly broke. For instance, five paintings from Alabama’s 2009 championship yielded more than $1 million in gross sales before employee and overhead costs, Moore said.

Alabama’s legal expenses have cost approximately $1.4 million, with funding coming from revenue from the self-sustaining athletics department, university spokeswoman Deborah Lane said.

“While we regret the necessity of having to involve the courts in this matter,” Lane said in a statement, “the lawsuit was necessary since UA must protect the value and reputation of our trademarks, names, colors, indicia and logos, by determining who uses them, as well as when and how they are used.”

Moore is a test case for Collegiate Licensing Company, Alabama’s licensing agent. CLC represents the NCAA, more than 100 universities and many conferences in the $4 billion industry of collegiate licensed merchandise.

The lawyers representing Alabama are CLC’s counsel. CLC acknowledged it is providing “material and financial support” to Alabama and did not comment further.

This fight might not end soon. Steve Heninger, Moore’s attorney, said Alabama and CLC lawyers explained from the start they would go to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

“CLC wants the law in black and white and a favorable ruling so they can charge the universities they represent more to go after art work and posters,” Heninger said. “They’ve tightened up a lot on (unlicensed) T-shirts, which is understandable. But art, we’ve got to fight.”

In his deposition, Witt faced the odd task of explaining why he didn’t sue Moore for publishing his artwork in the “Crimson & White” and “Iron Bowl Gold” books. Witt’s reasoning: Some written text in Moore’s books represented a freedom-of-speech issue, unlike a framed print on a wall.

Lane said Moore was licensed with Alabama from 1991 until 2000 and refused to continue. Moore said he paid more than $1 million in licensing fees, but his main concern is not allowing Alabama to control what he paints, calling it “a God-given right.”

Heninger said NCAA rules prevent Alabama from licensing products that depict athletes with remaining eligibility unless the item is only sold through the university’s distribution system. For instance, a licensed Moore painting showing BCS Championship Game MVP AJ McCarron would have to be sold at the university’s bookstore or website, not Bama Fever. That restricts Moore’s market.

“I don’t wait on someone to exhaust his eligibility,” Moore said. “Neither does The Birmingham News or Sports Illustrated before they publish a picture.”

Lane said Alabama has licensing agreements with about 600 business owners, two of whom produce sports art. This week, ActionSportsArt released two pieces of art from the latest BCS Championship Game that Alabama licensed and commissioned.

“I feel like they’re trying to nudge out would-be competitors, like they stole my idea and now they’re pushing me out,” Moore said.

Moore still supports the university he attended.

“But I’m not going to tell you it doesn’t still hurt,” he said. “It feels like Dre Kirkpatrick getting hit from behind by the Honey Badger on a cheap shot.”

The Cheap Shot. Sounds like a working title of Moore’s odyssey.

You can listen here:  http://player.streamtheworld.com/_players/citadel/?sid=3070

Craig James made conflicting sworn statements regarding Mike Leach

BIRMINGHAM, AL On December 12, 2011, Craig James signed a sworn Petition concerned with two books that recount the firing of Texas Tech coach, Mike Leach, in December 2009 regarding events between Leach and James’ son (Adam James) who was a football player on that team at the time. This latest sworn Petition states that James was not responsible for Leach’s firing. These sworn statements are in stark conflict with the sworn testimony taken earlier by depositions of Craig James, Adam James and Texas Tech officials which state that Craig James was working for ESPN and had a powerful platform and the Texas Tech President and the Athletic Director wanted to give Leach a private reprimand and a fine but James wanted an apology and Leach fired.

Craig James signed a sworn Petition that was filed in the District Court of Collin County, Texas on December 12, 2011. This sworn Petition is aimed towards pursuing claims that James says involve published statements which have been unflattering and false. The Petition is concerned with two books that recount the firing of Texas Tech coach, Mike Leach, in December 2009 regarding events between Leach and James’ son (Adam James) who was a football player on that team at the time.

This sworn Petition states that Adam James had suffered a concussion and was punished/mistreated by Coach Leach by being confined to a dark shed on one day and a media room/ electrical closet two days later. The specific, sworn statements made by Craig James that are of serious question are as follows:

“… Leach ordered the punitive actions, not for medical reasons, but to discipline and punish Adam James for ‘his attitude’ while he was diagnosed with a concussion.”

(Paragraph 17 of Petition.)

* * * *

“The authors create and foster a false impression in their books, and in public media surrounding the books, that Craig James was responsible for Leach’s firing by the University.”

(Paragraph 21 of Petition.)

* * * *

“… the allegation that Craig James interfered with Leach’s contract, by threatening TTU and its officials with litigation if Texas Tech did not terminate Leach, is illogical on its face. . .It is ludicrous and factually untrue to state that Craig James was the cause of the firing.”

(Paragraph 22 of Petition.)

* * * *

“… Leach was not going to be terminated if he simply apologized for placing Adam James in the dark shed and media room.”

(Paragraph 23 of Petition.)

* * * *

“When Adam James was placed in the dark media room on December 19th, he used his cell phone to videotape the electrical closet as being part of his area of confinement.”

(Paragraph 25 of Petition.)

These sworn statements are in stark conflict with the sworn testimony taken earlier by depositions of Craig James, Adam James and Texas Tech officials. Charlotte Bingham is an attorney and was the Vice-Chancellor at Texas Tech who conducted the official investigation into these matters within two days of a report by Craig James. Craig James had called the Chairman of the Board of Regents on December 19, 2009 and reported that his son had been shut in a dark shed one day and an electrical closet another day while being forced to stand for three hours. James admits he told Anders that his son was confined to an electrical closet for three hours. (Deposition of Craig James at p. 16.) He also sent an email to Anders and other officials on December 26, 2009, recommending that the Board members stand in a dark shed and an electrical closet for three hours: “Wanting them to experience what Adam had to experience.” (Deposition of Craig James at p. 14-15.) The Chairman of the Board of Regents testified about Craig James’ pursuit of this matter very simply: “He wanted an apology and he wanted Coach Leach fired.” (Deposition of Larry Anders at p. 87.) Chancellor, Kent Hance, testified to the same thing – Craig James wanted two things: an apology and Coach Leach fired. (Deposition of Kent Hance at p. 145.)

Deposition testimony has firmly established that Craig James did threaten Texas Tech with litigation and this pressure was taken very seriously. The Chairman of the Board of Regents testified:

“We took the threat that Craig James would go public with this matter very, very seriously. He had threatened that in his phone call to me on the 19th of December, that he was going to go public with this matter.”

(Deposition of Larry Anders at p. 64.) Texas Tech took the threat seriously “Because of his stature as a – - as a media figure, the – - the platform he had. . .” (Deposition of Larry Anders at p. 64-65.) When Charlotte Bingham (Vice-Chancellor) began her official investigation the day after Craig James called the Chairman of the Board of Regents, she interviewed Craig James. Ms. Bingham testified that James threatened her that he would bring in a team of lawyers “and that would be a can of worms and it would not be pretty.” Ms. Bingham said this was a threat to sue Texas Tech. (Deposition of Charlotte Bingham at p. 74.)

“Q. You took that as a threat?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Sure.

A. A threat of litigation.”

(Deposition of Charlotte Bingham at p. 74.) She even informed Leach’s attorney, Ted Liggett, that the University was getting “outside pressure” from Craig James. (Deposition of Charlotte Bingham at p. 208.) Another Board member, Jerry Turner, testified that Craig James was demanding Leach be fired and that he was influenced by James’ threat. (Deposition of Jerry Turner at p. 127, 139.) The University had wanted to suspend Leach and impose a fine but Craig James pushed against that. (Deposition of Jerry Turner at p. 138, 153.) Mr. Turner went on to testify:

“Q. My question to you is did you believe the James family was putting outside pressure on the administration or the Board of Regents?

A. Yes.”

(Deposition of Jerry Turner at p. 160.) Indeed, Craig James testified that he told the Texas Tech officials he wanted Leach fired. (Deposition of Craig James at p. 13.)

ELECTRICAL CLOSET

The video of the electrical closet and the reporting by ESPN that Adam James had been confined there for several hours was scripted drama and not fact. Charlotte Bingham, the official investigator spoke with Adam James. He told her he was only in the electrical closet for five minutes:

“Q. And it says here that Adam James told you that he was in the electrical closet for five minutes, right?

A. That’s correct.”

(Deposition of Charlotte Bingham at p. 80.) Indeed the trainer who took Adam James to the media room specifically told Adam James he did not want him in the electrical closet. (Deposition of Charlotte Bingham at p. 80-81.) Yet Adam went in there on his own.

“Adam James told me that he went into the electrical closet and that he stood in the electrical closet for approximately five minutes.” (Deposition of Charlotte Bingham at p. 83.) Therefore, she reported back to Texas Tech officials that “Adam was not confined in the electrical closet.” (Deposition of Charlotte Bingham at p. 195-196.) The President’s Chief of Staff, Grace Hernandez, also investigated these allegations and said Adam “never had to stand in electrical closet.” (Deposition of Charlotte Bingham at p. 150.) Ms. Bingham never recommended dismissal of Coach Leach. (Deposition of Charlotte Bingham at p. 46.)

When Adam James was confronted with the statements of the trainer that he had been told not to go into the electrical closet he admitted he could not say that was not true. (Deposition of Adam James at p. 135.)

“Q. So we can establish that it’s true. No one told you to go into the electrical closet, right?

A. Those exact words were not said.”

(Deposition of Adam James at p. 113.) When asked if he would admit that no one told him to go into the electrical closet, Adam James testified:

“Yes, but I also admit that nobody said, Adam James, stay in the media room.”

(Deposition of Adam James at p. 113.) He went in by himself and he came out by himself. (Deposition of Adam James at p. 142.) He testified that he made the video to show his friends. (Deposition of Adam James at p. 121.) Craig James authorized Spaeth Communications to release the video publicly “so this was going to help support Adam’s claim” and to make sure people believed Adam had been confined to an electrical closet. (Deposition of Craig James at p. 50-51.) The video release also stated that Adam had been confined there for “several hours.” (Deposition of Craig James at p. 56.) Yet, even James had to admit this was not true when he wrote his email to Texas Tech officials it had been three hours.

“Q. When you wrote this email of 12/26 you did not believe Adam had been confined to the electrical closet for a total of three hours, fair?

A. Yes.”

(Deposition of Craig James at p. 24.)

Craig James was working for ESPN and had a powerful platform. His son had been demoted due to disciplinary problems and tearing down a door at a coach’s office just weeks before. Coach Leach told Charlotte Bingham that Craig James had tried to run the team and influence Adam’s playing time and he was not going to allow it. (Deposition of Charlotte Bingham at p. 69, 123, 136.) Leach was not punishing Adam for the concussion, he just did not want him at practice doing nothing while everybody else was working and preparing for a bowl game. (Deposition of Charlotte Bingham at p. 246.) He actually felt he was treating Adam better than other injured players. (Deposition of Charlotte Bingham at p. 135.)

Indeed, Chancellor Hance testified that when Adam James broke the coach’s door and yelled “F… this,” “He should have been kicked off the team.” (Deposition of Kent Hance at p. 239.) Chancellor Hance said Adam should have been kicked off the team a long time ago. (Deposition of Kent Hance at p. 241.) “Mike should have dismissed him from the team earlier.” (Deposition of Kent Hance at p. 185.) The Athletic Director agreed that good coaching requires that you assure that the team is not distracted by one player – you have to remove the distraction. (Deposition of Gerald Myers at p. 151-152.)

Everyone has agreed that Adam James suffered no harm which was confirmed by the team physician, Dr. Phy. (Deposition of University President, Guy Bailey, at p. 89-90; 99.) There was no evidence that Leach was pressuring Dr. Phy (team physician) to clear players to play or practice with injuries. (Deposition of Guy Bailey at p. 105.) The President and the Athletic Director were not looking to terminate Coach Leach over this. (Deposition of Guy Bailey at p. 159-160; Deposition of Gerald Myers at p. 90.) However, the University knew Craig James was with ESPN and had the ability to make all of this an immediate, national story. (Deposition of Gerald Myers at p. 34.) The self-created video and the scrolls on ESPN of being confined to the electrical closet several hours confirmed that concern and fiction was reported as fact.

Adam James testified that he thought being put in the dark shed on the first day “was funny.” (Deposition of Adam James at p. 86.) “Being in the shed was not causing me any medical harm.” (Deposition of Adam James at p. 84.) “I wasn’t in medical jeopardy.” (Deposition of Adam James at p. 84.) He was also asked about the media room:

“Q. Were you hurt? Were you in any worse condition than you were before?”

A. No sir.”

(Deposition of Adam James at p. 144-145.) His father even admitted that there had not been the requirement that Adams stand for three hours. “He told me he had sat down. He had gone to the bathroom. He told me he had laid down and felt bad.” (Deposition of Craig James at p. 35-36.) Chancellor Hance heard that he had sat and napped as well. (Deposition of Kent Hance at p. 36.)

The President and the Athletic Director wanted to give Leach a private reprimand and a fine but James wanted an apology and Leach fired. (Deposition of Larry Anders at p. 78, 87.) Tech officials felt that time was not their friend because of the threat from Craig James. (Deposition of Larry Anders at p. 120.) Therefore, they acted quickly. When Leach refused to sign a letter that said he acted wrongly (which was insufficient for Craig James) he told the Board he would file for an injunction if they terminated him. A memo went out from the Board:

“We concurred in advance with the decision to fire Leach if he sought to proceed with his suit against the University.”

(Deposition of Kent Hance at p. 67.) Leach believed he had done nothing wrong. (Deposition of Kent Hance at p. 89-92.) However, the pressure of Craig James and his use of ESPN was too much. In fact, Chancellor Hance later went on ESPN and said that Leach “acknowledged he had Adam James locked up.” At his deposition, the Chancellor admitted “The statement is inaccurate.” (Deposition of Kent Hance at p. 106, 108.) When Craig James couldn’t interfere with the playing time of his son, he got his retribution by interfering with Coach Leach’s employment. This time he won because of his agency and platform with ESPN.

Mike Leach has recently retained Stephen D. Heninger of the law firm of Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC in Birmingham, Alabama to represent him as lead counsel in his litigation with ESPN and Craig James along with attorney Ted Liggett in Lubbock, Texas. The civil actions against ESPN, James and Spaeth Communication have been stayed until the issue of the sovereign immunity of Texas Tech is resolved by the Texas Supreme Court.

###

Contact:

Kristi Ozley

kozley@hgdlawfirm.com

Heninger Garrison Davis

2224 1st Avenue North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

(205) 326-3336

Toll Free: 1-800-241-9779

By Kirk Bohls | Thursday, January 19, 2012, 03:34 PM

Article courtesy of statesman.com

Washington State head football coach MIke Leach has retained Steve Heninger of Birmingham, Ala., as his lead attorney in his high-profile case against ESPN, former college football analyst Craig James and Texas Tech University after Leach was fired from the Lubbock school in 2009.

The move comes on the heels of previous lead attorney Paul Dobrowski’s withdrawal from the legal team, which now includes Heninger of Heninger, Garrison, Davis, LLC.

“I think it’s a phenomenal case against James and ESPN,” Heninger told the American-Statesman on Thursday afternoon. “I think it’s very close to being a case where a judge would grant a summary judgment in favor of Leach.”

Heninger, who represented and won a settlement for former Alabama head coach Mike Price in a case against Time Inc. over a Sports Illustrated article recounting a night of drinking at a topless bar in Florida in 2003, said he was “not much involved in the Texas Tech case because that hay’s already in the barn,” referring to the legal briefs that both the school and Leach’s Lubbock legal team led by Ted Liggitt were to provide to the Texas Supreme Court.

The state’s highest court will rule on the briefs and decide whether to stay with the decision by the Seventh Court of Appeals, which threw out a state district court’s initial ruling to allow Leach to sue the university.

Leach on his own wrote a letter to Texas Tech’s Board of Regents and other school officials on Nov. 28, offering a willingness to settle his case for what he was owed in 2009. Leach was fired on Dec. 30, 2009, two days before a bonus was to kick in, and the coach is asking for 2009 pay including all guaranteed income, a 10-year bonus and any incentive bonuses. The American-Statesman obtained a copy of the letter this week.

Liggett told the Statesman this week that Leach’s attorneys have asked to meet with school officials, but have been rebuffed.

“They said they’re not interested,” Liggett said. “I consider that the height of arrogance that they claim our case has no merit in law. They won’t even sit down and talk to us.”

Liggett declined to reveal the amount of a proposed settlement that Leach would accept but added, “It’s obvious we’re not asking for multi-millions of dollars. When they say they think we don’t have a case, that’s an outrage. We have a case.”