Judge sets Oct. 29 date in Paterno family lawsuit
BELLEFONTE — A judge has scheduled an Oct. 29 hearing in the lawsuit filed by the family of former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno against the NCAA over penalties it imposed on the school amid the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.
Judge John Leete said in an order that he would hear arguments on preliminary objections filed by defendants in the case, court officials announced Wednesday. The order also established a schedule for the Paterno family and other plaintiffs to reply to the objections.
The NCAA penalized the schools for its response to complaints about the former Paterno assistant and imposed a $60 million fine, a four-year bowl ban, a loss of scholarships and the elimination of 112 Paterno-era wins.
The order also said the hearing will not address issues involving the court's jurisdiction over claims against NCAA president Mark Emmert and former executive committee chairman Edward Ray as individuals. The judge said he would deal with those issues later, if necessary.
NCAA's lawyers have argued that the plaintiffs didn't assert any facts that suggest the two men “maintain continuous and systematic contacts” with the state of Pennsylvania. Emmert and Ray are also named as defendants in their official capacities.
Sandusky, 69, is serving a decades-long prison sentence after being convicted last year of child molestation. Paterno died in January 2012, two months after he was removed as head coach following the arrests of Sandusky, athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz.
Curley, Schultz and former Penn State president Graham Spanier await trial on allegations they illegally covered up complaints about Sandusky.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Wines claimed to be toxic with arsenic won’t be pulled by state Liquor Control Board
- Sandusky attorney, ‘victim’ of gambling addiction, waives hearing on charges he stole client funds
- Wife: Abu-Jamal ‘not doing well’
- Sex-soaked culture faulted for fraternity house parties
- Impact of Ohio’s moves to reduce Lake Erie algae years away
- Trooper severely injured when hit by own car
- Pa. trooper wounded in barracks ambush hopes to return to force
- Part of Paternos’ case rejected
- Lawyers in Philadelphia allege racketeering a dealer scheme
- Public session altered by Wolf
- Police: Some pictured on Penn State frat sites come forward