POCATELLO — Although his motion was denied last week, Eagle attorney Ronaldo Coulter still considered the decisions made by Sixth District Judge Robert Naftz on his client Habib Sadid, a former Idaho State University professor, a victory.

    “The beautiful part about this is the case now moves forward,” Coulter said after the hearing.

    Coulter represents the former ISU professor who was terminated from ISU in 2009. Sadid filed the lawsuit against ISU and administrators, including university president Arthur Vailas last year.

    But the case was on hold much of 2011 awaiting adjudication of a suit he filed in 2008 while still an employee of ISU. That suit was presided over by Sixth District Judge David Nye and came to a close in December of last year.

    In January, Naftz removed the stay on Sadid’s second lawsuit and declared it could move forward to help reduce court costs. What was once a single suit was broken up last year. The suit against individuals, including Vailas, is being fought in U.S. District Court in Pocatello while the suit against ISU is being fought in state court.

    Allowing the suit against ISU to move forward in January rather than waiting for the federal case to run its course means the same discovery motions can be used for both case, reducing the costs that would have come with conducting discovery for each case separately, according to Coulter.

    But Coulter says that when Naftz gave the go ahead in January, that meant the attorneys representing ISU were supposed to respond to his original complaint within 20 days, or by Feb. 13. That response was filed Aug. 15 and Coulter filed a motion urging the court to strike the response because it was six months overdue.

    He also asked that Naftz hand down a judgment in favor of Sadid.

    The arguments on that motion were lengthy, taking more than an hour to complete last week. Coulter’s argument, while steeped in Idaho judicial rules of procedure, was basic: the defendant’s response was substantially late and, therefore, invalid.

    “The failure to file an answer in a timely manner makes it null,” Coulter told Naftz. “The entire argument is immaterial.”

    Representing ISU is attorney John Bailey and he countered the plaintiff’s argument.

    “We feel as though we have fallen into the rabbit hole again,” Bailey told Naftz. “This is an ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ interpretation of the rules.”

    After challenging Coulter’s interpretation of the procedural rules, Bailey told Naftz there were three basic reasons the judge should deny the motion to strike his response to the original complaint.

    Bailey said the answer is not yet due because the defense has the right to an answer on the long-standing motion to dismiss the case. He asserted his response was filed on time and that even if his response wasn’t timely, Coulter’s interpretation of the rules as explained in his motion are wrong.

    Naftz, after hearing arguments on Coulter’s motion, then heard arguments on Bailey’s motion to dismiss the case, originally filed last September. Naftz first heard arguments on that motion last fall, but declined to make a decision to give each attorney time to submit additional information.

    During his arguments to deny Coulter’s motion to strike, Bailey said he didn’t believe the answer was due because no decision had yet been returned on his motion to dismiss.

    During the arguments regarding that motion to dismiss, it became clear a different route was developing, one that both sides could agree upon.

    Naftz denied Coulter’s motion to strike Bailey’s response and with it the judgment Coulter sought. The judge then said he would not be ruling on Bailey’s motion to dismiss, but rather he converted it to a motion for summary judgment, which asks the judge to decide the case in favor of the party filing the motion based on the information within that motion.

    An Oct. 9 hearing was scheduled to hear arguments on motions for summary judgment filed by each side, giving both parties ample time to file their respective motions and notify the other party.

    But Oct. 9 will not be the first time both sides will meet in court. They will be in federal court in Pocatello on Sept. 17, arguing motions for summary judgment in front of U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill.

    After the October hearing in Naftz’ court, the two will be in front of the Idaho Supreme Court, which is convening at Idaho State University on Nov. 7. Among the cases the state’s top court will be hearing that day is an appeal of decisions in Sadid’s prior case.