I believe it's "preponderance of evidence." You don't have to go to beyond reasonable doubt, but you have to come up with more evidence than the defense can.
I just realized you can click on the little page icon at the end of the article. It links to the lawsuit. It looks like she is suing Nate Jaqua, LA Galaxy, Houston Dynamo, MLS, and 5 John Doe MLS teams. http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/07/02/Nate Jaqua.pdf
They really should do their research, MLS is single-entity. D'uh, everyone knows that. They own all player contracts. I would throw the case out just on that reason.
Yeah, but each team has its own separate operating company, which can be sued individually. Who holds the contract, I don't believe, would have much to do with who you can sue in a case like this, but I could be wrong.
Yes. But my point is that "guilty" or "innocent" aren't terms that are used, I don't believe. I believe they use "liable" or something like that. The document (a) lists the girl's name - are you kidding me? And ( b) was filed two days ago. The accuser, apparently.
Doesn't matter, you can obtain jurisdiction in Oregon by serving process in Washington under a long arm statute. Doesnt matter that he was in the state since according to the complaint the alleged act took place in the State. As for civil damages here, i assume its under an intentional infliction of emotional distress type allegation. In any event, color me skeptical of her being able to prove her case, even in a civil courts far less strict burden of proof. She has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was an intentional harm (tort) and that harm did in fact occur then she has to prove damages. In short not an easy case. I assume this is a case designed to settlem out of court to avoid embarasment and cost.
If that's her, she did play 16 games in 2006 for Oregon in what would have been her redshirt freshman year. She did not play in 2007. She would have been 19 at the time of the alleged assault. If this is her, this is her:
I know. I'm just saying...convenience. Not that you can't legally sue him across states or have someone do it in Washington. But if you know where and when someone is going to be close to you, it makes sense to me to serve him then.
Meanwhile, this story says she had four knee surgeries and THAT'S why she left Oregon. And she's listed on the University of Victoria's 2008-2009 women's soccer roster.
The trouble with this that they'll need evidence to prove it. But here's the thing since it supposedly happened 2 years ago, why didn't she filed lawsuit at the alleged time it happened.
Yeah.. Doesn't that kind of ruin her whole "I couldn't play soccer anymore" claim? Plus side.. You can buy that picture of her framed for 38 bucks canadian....
I do not think it is outside the realm of possibilities that she has been traumatized by this and has gone back and forth many times on whether to sue him. If it is true she waited until the last day of the statute of limitations, then this debate may have lasted up until the statute of limitations - which is a drop dead date for this type of thing, and that prompted her into action. Why wouldn't she want to bring suit? Well, being traumatized may give you trust issues, but it also opens you up to a whole lot of scrutiny, evaluation and judgment by the public.
Of course... "I had 4 knee surgeries, so couldn't play anymore" sounds a lot better than "I was violently raped by a MLS player and the thought of playing soccer made me sick" when you're writing a puff piece about a player returning to the field after 2 years.
It's not about suing Jaqua at all, is it? It's about suing MLS. The Galaxy in 2007 played on June 23 at home against Columbus and didn't play a league match again until July 4 (by which time Jaqua had been traded to Houston). I guess he could have gone home to Oregon on the bye week.
To be fair, the lawsuit says "after the attack, Plaintiff could no longer attend the University of Oregon or play on its soccer team because of the mental distress it caused her." Just says couldn't bear to play or be in Eugene anymore. Which would be understandable.
Sure seems so. It's basically trying to say MLS and its teams have corporate liability for the alleged rape.
Odd that the teams and league would be sued at all. If I was sued in civil court for personaly injury, I'm pretty sure the company I work for wouldn't be party to the suit especially if the incident did not occur in the workplace.
How deep are your employers pockets? __ Perhaps the only thing she is thinking is the cash settlement that she may get so as to avoid any negative publicity for MLS and its backers. Would not be the first time someone filed a lawsuit expecting a settlement to stay quiet.
You'd think. You can attempt to make a case, though, which is what Section 26 of the suit appears to be doing. While Nate Jaqua makes $200,000 a year, the real money would be in going after MLS, LLC and AEG (parent company of Houston and LA). Not saying exactly that that's the entire motive. Just saying that it seems to be the way our litigious society works, that you sue people who you think can afford it. And not everything you put into the document that you file with the court has to be 100% truthful or accurate, does it?