UK, after being granted some extra time, has responded to the lawsuit Billy Gillispie filed in Texas against his former employer. UK has petitioned for dismissal of the case or, at the very least, a move of the case to Kentucky. This follows UK’s countersuit filed earlier this month against Gillispie contending that Gillispie sued “the wrong entity in the wrong venue”:

Gillispie “attempts to bring these convoluted claims against UKAA to avoid the fact that the university is a state agency of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and, due to sovereign immunity, cannot be sued in Texas,” wrote UK attorneys Stephen L. Barker of the Lexington firm Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Maloney and Michael P. Royal, a Dallas-based lawyer.

“Alternatively, the lawsuit should be transferred to Kentucky — where the overwhelming majority of the witnesses reside and where the alleged acts for the basis of this suit occurred.”

I can’t imagine UK has any expectation that the case could be tossed at this point. However, they do believe that the case should be moved to Kentucky, and they have a strong argument. It really doesn’t make any sense for the case to be heard in Texas, and while Gillispie’s claim that UK tortiously interfered in luring UK away from Texas A&M is a clever one, it doesn’t really have any merit:

“The state of Kentucky has a strong interest in these issues, particularly where public funds may be at stake,” UK’s attorneys wrote.

Maybe UK will cite the Pinkie as evidence of the state of Kentucky’s strong interest in this case. We’ve certainly posted enough on this topic to prove it.