Claim: scandal author should pay for hurting value of U. of Louisville degrees

“A University of Louisville student has filed a lawsuit against Katina Powell and her publisher, claiming Powell’s book, ‘Breaking Cardinal Rules: Basketball and the Escort Queen,’ has damaged the value of a degree from the school…. The suit is seeking class action status on behalf of the student body at UofL.” [WDRB]


  • The student wants a trial by jury. I recommend a change of venue from Louisville. I think Lexington would be the ideal city.

  • According to her book, as part of the U of L recruiting activities for its basketball program, Ms. Powell, brought her three daughters, aged 15, 17 & 19, and they partied and had sex with the prospects. Since, unlike plaintiff, the Powell daughters now have professions with which they can support themselves, it appears that the market value of plaintiff’s degree has already been established. To complete the farce, the daughters should file date rape charges against the boys, since under the Dept of Ed OCR guidelines there was never affirmative consent, because they were paid to perform.

  • Damaging the value of a degree is not in and of itself a tort. What is the cause of action here?

    • “What is the cause of action here?”

      Butt hurt.

    • “What is the cause of action here?”

      The lawsuit was linked in the linked article, but I’ll give you the link here.

      Count I is a request for injunctive relief, which seems odd. It just seems like most suits put those at the end, after they’ve alleged everything else and have established a reason for the injunction.

      Count II cites chapter 529 of the KRS (which relates to prostitution and human trafficking), and this statute:

      446.070 Penalty no bar to civil recovery.
      A person injured by the violation of any statute may recover from the offender such damages as he sustained by reason of the violation, although a penalty or forfeiture is imposed for such violation.

      Citing all of chapter 529 is a bit vague, but presumably they think there was a violation of 529.040(1): “A person is guilty of promoting prostitution when he knowingly advances or profits from prostitution.”

      “Intentional interference with a contract”, “Intentional interference with economic relations”, and “Civil Conspiracy” are the other causes of action listed.

      And it continues to amaze me that lawyers don’t proofread. “$10,000 dollars” is redundant. “Circuit Court” is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not, in the same context. There are two “Count V” headings, the second one being the request for class action. They say in one place that they’re asking for declaratory relief, but (unless I missed it) never actually specify what sort of declaratory relief they’re looking for. Many of the sentences in the class action section aren’t coherent sentences.

      The lawsuit seems problematic at best. “Profiting from prostitution” is defined by statute like this:

      A person “profits from prostitution” when acting other than as a prostitute receiving compensation for personally rendered prostitution services, he or she knowingly accepts or receives or agrees to accept or receive money or other property pursuant to an agreement or understanding with any person whereby he or she participates or is to participate in proceeds of prostitution activity;”

      I don’t think selling a book talking about past prostitution fits this definition. And, of course, the connection between the publishing of the book and the value of a university degree is tenuous at best.

  • The cause of action is that some one else has money.