1 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 4 --------------------------------------------- 5 DELTA KAPPA EPSILON (DKE) ALUMNI 6 CORPORATION, et al. 7 8 9 Plaintiff, 10 -versus- 05-CV-245 11 (OSC FOR TRO AND 12 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - DECISION) 13 14 COLGATE UNIVERSITY, et al. 15 16 17 Defendant. 18 --------------------------------------------- 19 file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (1 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:04 PM
20 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held in and for 21 the United States District Court, Northern District of 22 New York, at the James T. Foley United States Courthouse, 23 445 Broadway, Albany, New York 12207, on THURSDAY, 24 MARCH 10, 2005, before the HON. GARY L. SHARPE, 25 United States District Court Judge. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT REPORTER - NDNY BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (2 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:04 PM
2 1 2 APPEARANCES: 3 4 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 5 6 BROUSE, McDOWELL LAW FIRM 7 BY: THOMAS WIENCEK, ESQ. 8 9 10 11 12 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: 13 14 BOND, SCHOENECK, KING LAW FIRM 15 BY: EDWARD R. CONAN, ESQ. 16 - and - 17 HUGHES, HUBBARD LAW FIRM 18 BY: GEORGE A. DAVIDSON, ESQ. 19 file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (3 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:04 PM
20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT REPORTER - NDNY BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (4 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:04 PM
DKE v COLGATE UNIVERSITY, et al. 05-CV-245 3 1 (Court commenced at 1:40 PM.) 2 THE CLERK: The date is Thursday, March 10, 3 2005, at 1:40 PM. 4 In the matter of Delta Kappa Epsilon versus 5 Colgate University, et. al, Case Number 05-CR-245. We're 6 here for an application by the plaintiffs for an order to 7 show cause for a temporary restraining order and preliminary 8 injunction. 9 Can we have appearances for the record 10 please. 11 MR. WIENCEK: Good afternoon, your Honor. My 12 name is Thomas Wiencek, appearing on behalf of Delta Kappa 13 Epsilon, et al. 14 THE COURT: Good afternoon. 15 MR. CONAN: Edward Conan, Bond, Schoeneck & 16 King, on behalf of Colgate University and the individual 17 defendants. And with me is... 18 MR. DAVIDSON: George Davidson, your Honor, 19 of Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, co-counsel with Mr. Conan for the file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (5 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:04 PM
20 same defendants. 21 - - - - - 22 (Case background cited by Court.) 23 (Oral argument heard.) 24 (Brief recess at 2:35 PM.) 25 (In open court at 2:45 AM.) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT REPORTER - NDNY BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (6 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:04 PM
DKE v COLGATE UNIVERSITY, et al. 05-CV-245 4 1 THE COURT: Let me turn to what's before me, 2 which is the application for the temporary restraining order 3 and preliminary injunction that I articulated earlier. Let 4 me address the Freedom of Speech and Campus Act claim and 5 Sherman Act claim in that context. 6 Under the Freedom of Speech Act, in order to 7 justify the award of a preliminary injunction, the moving 8 party must first demonstrate that it is likely to suffer 9 irreparable harm in the absence of the requested relief. 10 That's Bery, B-E-R-Y, 97 F.3d 689, Second Circuit, 1996. 11 Addressing DKE's FSAC violation claim, it's 12 well settled that violations of First Amendment rights are 13 commonly considered irreparable injuries for the purposes of 14 a preliminary injunction. That's Bery, at 689. However, 15 the irreparable injury prong cannot be satisfied in this 16 case for the following reasons: 17 First, there's no cause of action in the 18 complaint for any First Amendment violation. Second, even 19 if such a cause of action can be construed from the facts in file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (7 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:04 PM
20 the complaint, no such claim can be made against Colgate as 21 a private institution. That's Leeds, 85 F.3d 51, Second 22 Circuit, 1996, indicating that First Amendment claims apply 23 only to state actors. Moreover, Colgate University has 24 already been determined not to be a state actor by a Court 25 in this District. That's Judge Scullin's decision in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT REPORTER - NDNY BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (8 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:04 PM
DKE v COLGATE UNIVERSITY, et al. 05-CV-245 5 1 Howard, 95-CV-329, Northern District, September 1994, 1995. 2 Notwithstanding that fact, DKE's complaint does not make any 3 allegation that Colgate is a state actor that would permit 4 construction of its claim to support that theory. 5 Even presuming for purposes of the freedom of 6 speech claim that the Court were to find irreparable harm, 7 there's no likelihood of success on the merits or 8 sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make 9 them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships 10 tips decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary 11 relief. Contrary to DKE's argument, there's no clear 12 binding language in FSAC that demonstrates that Congress 13 intended to create a private cause of action under this 14 statute upon private academic institutions. The mere words 15 of "it is the sense of Congress" cannot have such a binding 16 effect. That's Monahan, M-O-N-A-H-A-N, 961 F.2d 987, First 17 Circuit, 1982. At most, it's precatory and distinguishable 18 from the Equal Access Act which uses such binding language 19 as shall. file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (9 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:04 PM
20 Accordingly, in so far as the application for 21 a TRO on a preliminary injunction is based upon the Freedom 22 of Speech and Association Campus Act, it's denied. 23 The Court turns to the Sherman Act. As it 24 relates to DKE's allegations of Colgate's violations of the 25 Sherman Act and the other pendent state law claims, it's UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT REPORTER - NDNY BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (10 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:04 PM
DKE v COLGATE UNIVERSITY, et al. 05-CV-245 6 1 well settled that the difficulty in ascertaining damages is 2 the proper test of irreparable harm. That's Xerox, 507 F.2d 3 at 360. The Circuit, however, has pointed out that in 4 antitrust cases courts have allowed the plaintiff a broad 5 latitude in establishing proof of damages in pursuing such 6 claims. That's Xerox. Also Bigelow, B-I-G-E-L-O-W, 327 7 U.S. 251. 8 The argument that there's no reasonable way 9 of calculating irreparable harm in terms of monetary damages 10 fails due to this broad latitude. As a result, DKE's 11 contention that the gradual elimination of DKE's residential 12 services is irreparable harm is unavailing. The DKE house 13 has not been sold, and therefore it still remains a 14 competitor in the residential market. Although DKE argues 15 that Colgate's violation has an impact on students who are 16 contemplating their choices of fraternities for the fall, 17 DKE fails to show how such a claim cannot be compensated by 18 monetary damages. 19 Similarly, DKE fails to satisfy this same file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (11 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:04 PM
20 prong as it relates to the ancillary claims. Moreover, DKE 21 has known about this situation since November 2004 and has 22 only recently filed suit and applied for a TRO and 23 preliminary injunction. The Second Circuit has held that 24 preliminary injunctions are generally granted under the 25 theory that there is an urgent need for speedy action to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT REPORTER - NDNY BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (12 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:04 PM
DKE v COLGATE UNIVERSITY, et al. 05-CV-245 7 1 protect the plaintiff's rights. Delay in seeking 2 enforcement of those rights, however, tends to indicate at 3 least reduced need for such a drastic, speedy action. 4 That's Citibank, 756 F.2d 273, Second Circuit, 1985. 5 There is no requirement that DKE sell the 6 house to Colgate. The fact of the matter is that what DKE 7 seeks is to have this Court enjoin Colgate from failing to 8 recognize DKE as a fraternity, a discretionary action that 9 belongs to Colgate and not to this Court. Moreover, the 10 normal function of the preliminary injunction is to maintain 11 the status quo pending a full hearing and not to give the 12 relief that DKE essentially seeks in its complaint. Xerox, 13 at 361. 14 Even if the irreparable harm element was met, 15 DKE fails to satisfy both requirements under the second 16 prong for the TRO preliminary injunction. In this regard 17 DKE heavily relies on the Circuit's holding in Hamilton, 128 18 F.3d at 59, for the argument that their claims have a 19 likelihood of success on the merits, but -- the contentions file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (13 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:04 PM
20 in Hamilton are similar to the case at bar, but DKE's 21 argument is undermined by the fact that the Second Circuit 22 only held that the allegations in Hamilton were sufficient 23 to survive a motion to dismiss and express no view on the 24 merits of the claims relating to the Sherman Act violations. 25 That's Hamilton at 128 F.3d at 67 and note 3. Therefore, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT REPORTER - NDNY BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (14 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:05 PM
DKE v COLGATE UNIVERSITY, et al. 05-CV-245 8 1 the Circuit's decision to reverse the District Court's 2 dismissal and remand the case was based on procedural, not 3 meritorious grounds. Again, as the parties recognize here 4 this afternoon, on remand, District Court Judge Mordue 5 granted the defendant college's motion for summary judgment 6 since the plaintiffs failed to properly define the market 7 area for its Sherman Act violation. His decision is 8 reported at 106 F. Supp. 2d 406. 9 In this case the Court notes that DKE's 10 complaint limits the residential services market to the Town 11 of Hamilton and its immediate vicinity. That's not 12 sufficient to satisfy a crucial element for a Sherman Act 13 violation. But it is the Court's overall view that Colgate 14 is correct, what really is at issue here is DKE's wish to 15 continue as a viable fraternity on campus in the fall of 16 2005. That's a decision that Colgate has the authority to 17 control and is not the harm that would be rectified by the 18 allegations in the complaint either under the Sherman Act, 19 under the Freedom of Speech and Association Campus Act or file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (15 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:05 PM
20 through any of the pendent or ancillary claims that are 21 attached to the complaint. It's simply the wrong mechanism 22 to gain the relief which DKE seeks. 23 For those reasons, the Court denies the 24 application for a temporary restraining order, denies the 25 application for a preliminary injunction and refers the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT REPORTER - NDNY BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (16 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:05 PM
DKE v COLGATE UNIVERSITY, et al. 05-CV-245 9 1 parties to the co-assigned Magistrate Judge. 2 Has an answer been filed here yet? 3 MR. CONAN: No, your Honor, it has not. 4 THE COURT: All right. As soon as it has, I 5 take it DKE obtained a general order 25 package when it 6 filed its complaint? 7 MR. WIENCEK: Yes. 8 THE COURT: And there's a co-assigned 9 Magistrate Judge. And the parties are left to their own 10 volition to deal with the Magistrate assigned. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. CONAN: Thank you, Judge. 13 (Court adjourned at 2:53 PM.) 14 - - - - - 15 16 17 18 19 file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (17 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:05 PM
20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT REPORTER - NDNY BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (18 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:05 PM
DKE v COLGATE UNIVERSITY, et al. 05-CV-245 10 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 3 4 5 I, BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, Official Court 6 Reporter in and for the United States District Court, 7 Northern District of New York, do hereby certify that I 8 attended at the time and place set forth in the heading 9 hereof; that I did make a stenographic record of the 10 proceedings held in this matter and caused the same to be 11 transcribed; that the foregoing is a true and correct 12 transcript of the same and whole thereof. 13 14 15 16 BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR 17 USDC Court Reporter - NDNY 18 19 file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (19 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:05 PM
20 DATED: MARCH 11, 2005 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT REPORTER - NDNY BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (20 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:05 PM
= file:///c /Documents%20and%20Settings/tokeeffe/Desktop/M031005%20DKE%20v%20Colgate%20(decision).txt (21 of 21)3/11/2005 5:04:05 PM