By Jimmy Hancock

jhancock@journalnet.com

    POCATELLO — Sixth District Judge Robert Naftz has again placed on hold a suit filed by a former Idaho State University professor who was fired from the university in 2009.

    Habib Sadid filed the lawsuit last year against ISU and several administrators, including the university’s president, Arthur Vailas.

    The suit was eventually split, with the suit against ISU remaining in state court and the suit against the individual administrators being moved to U.S. District Court in Pocatello.

    The district suit was placed on hold a year ago awaiting adjudication of a 2008 suit Sadid filed while still an employee there.

    That suit, which was presided over by Sixth District Judge David Nye, came to a close in December. Once it was complete, Sadid’s Eagle-based attorney, Ronaldo Coulter, filed a motion to lift the stay on the current case.

    In January, Naftz lifted the stay and declared the case could move forward, allowing attorneys to conduct the same discovery for both the federal and state cases, thereby reducing costs of fighting the two suits.

    But in August, Coulter filed a motion in state court asking Naftz to strike the answer to the state suit, which was filed by ISU’s attorney, John Bailey, on the same day, arguing that the response was six months late.

    Coulter also sought an immediate judgment in favor of his client based on what he said was Bailey’s failure to file the answer in a timely manner.

    According to Idaho statutes, the respondent, or defendant, in a suit must respond to that suit in some form within 20 days.

    When the suit was originally filed, Bailey filed a motion to dismiss the suit 10 days later.

    Naftz heard arguments on that motion to dismiss, as well as a motion to stay the case pending the prior case in front of Nye.

    The judge took the motion to dismiss under advisement, rendering no decision at the time, and put the stay in effect.

    Last month, in arguing his motion to strike Bailey’s answer and rule in favor of Sadid, Coulter said Bailey should have filed his answer within 10 days of Naftz lifting the stay in January.

    Even if given the full 20 days to file his answer, Bailey should have filed it in late February, not in August.

    Bailey argued that because his original motion to dismiss had not been ruled on, the time limit on his response to the original suit had not yet gone into effect.

    Naftz ultimately denied Coulter’s motion to strike Bailey’s answer and his request to rule in favor of Sadid.

    He also declined to rule on Bailey’s motion to dismiss, instead, asking him to convert it to a motion for summary judgment.

    Coulter was also to file a similar motion and arguments on both motions were then slated for Oct. 9.

    But last week, both attorneys were back in front of Naftz arguing Coulter’s motion asking the judge to allow him to appeal last month’s denial of the motion to strike Bailey’s answer to the Idaho Supreme Court.

    During his argument, Coulter said Sadid’s case made seven claims against ISU and that Bailey’s motion to dismiss was pertinent to only two of those claims.

    He said that proceedings on the other claims should have moved forward and Bailey was still required to file the answer.

    Coulter also said he could find no other similar case for precedent, claiming this instance to be a “first impression,” one of the criteria for appealing such a motion directly to the Idaho Supreme Court.

    Bailey argued that there was a precedent case that was precisely the same as they were dealing with on Monday.

    Furthermore, he said, that in that case, the Idaho Supreme Court essentially said that a motion for default should be filed if it could be filed.

    Coulter said they did not believe a motion for default was appropriate because Bailey had filed a motion to dismiss and because he was consistently present for each and every hearing.

    After the hearing, which became heated at times, the judge took some time to review some of the documents Coulter discussed during his argument. He then gave a brief decision.

    Not only did Naftz deny the motion, he also agreed with Bailey that the motion was frivolous, and granted his motion requesting attorney’s fees from Sadid to cover the costs of fighting the motion.

    He then granted Bailey’s request to stay the case until the federal case is decided.

    After the proceeding, outside the Bannock County Courthouse, Coulter said he was not surprised at the stay.

    In fact, he said he and Bailey agreed that there would be at least a brief stay while Coulter appealed Naftz’s September decision to deny his motion to strike Bailey’s answer.

    Coulter explained that according to the rules of appealing a motion based on Rule 12, under which the attorney based his arguments, that Bailey’s answer should be stricken, he must first seek permission from the ruling judge before appealing the decision to the Idaho Supreme Court.

    Should Naftz have given him the permission he asked for, Coulter would have sent his request to Idaho’s top court and while awaiting an answer, the case would have been stayed. Naftz’s decision last week, he said, does not stop the process. Coulter said he will now send his request to the Idaho Supreme Court.

    He is not necessarily expecting a favorable response, but he is hopeful. Should the Idaho Supreme Court determine Coulter’s motion to strike Bailey’s answer and move to a judgment in favor of Sadid has merit, it could effectively spell victory for his client, he said.