View attachment 354715
Explain this to me like I'm a golden retriever....we fuccin or nah?
The brief is pretty well-written and I think there is a fairly good shot of prevailing (in one way or another):
A. Asks for 2 possible outcomes: (1) get rid of the TRO, or (2) give me the hearing today instead of (nearly) two weeks from now.
B. Says that he had 16 hours to respond to Duke's motion, including hiring an attorney. As such, he had no chance to figure out how many schools were interested in him, and what their enrollment deadlines are.
C. The prior judge ignored both a request for an earlier hearing, as well as setting the hearing for MORE THAN the 10-day duration of a TRO, and as such, we are now learning that the 2/2 hearing is "too late" to meet enrollment deadlines.
D. Now that we have more than 16 hours to assemble an "enrollment deadlines" schedule, it is effectively "new evidence", which is one of three grounds for challenging a TRO.
E. Another ground for challenging a TRO is "manifest injustice". Because Mensah is allowed to BE IN THE TRANSFER PORTAL, but not, you know, ACTUALLY TRANSFER until it will be too late to do so, this is a manifest injustice that allows the TRO to be tossed.
F. IN THE ALTERNATIVE (because a TRO is valid for 10-days or the resolution of the motion, whichever comes earlier), Mensah requests a hearing today. Same grounds as above.
G. Citation of various cases and rationales. Yada yada yada. The good stuff is in the middle of Page 6 and the bottom of Page 10.
Ultimately, I do not deny that a North Carolina judge in a North Carolina court may do a fat lot of nothing and rule in favor of Duke. That possibility always exists, though there are no "good" reasons for this, just laziness and "home cooking".
The "good" reasons for doing something are fairly clear. The kid was given 16 hours to respond, and the bizarre ruling both ALLOWS him to ENTER THE TRANSFER PORTAL but PREVENTS him from, you know, TRANSFERRING.
This is the classic "cut the baby in half" solution, and it's stupid. And it really should be overturned, if the court is in any way fair or impartial.