The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachussetts transferred a lawsuit filed by three members of the Rose Art Museum Board of Overseers asking that the University halt the closing of the Rose to the Suffolk Probate court Aug. 6, according to Emily LaGrassa, communications director for Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.LaGrassa explained in an e-mail to the Justice that the probate court is the appropriate venue for the lawsuit because it is a fact-finding court, whereas the Supreme Court hears appeals after the trial has already occurred.

LaGrassa also wrote that a case management conference, a discussion of internal deadlines pertinent to the case, has been scheduled for Sept. 1. When asked about a trial date, LaGrassa responded that one would not be set for many months.

Rose overseers Jonathan Lee, Meryl Rose and Lois Foster filed the lawsuit July 27 in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachussetts. The lawsuit states that the University's decision to close the museum and sell its paintings would violate the museum's ethical codes and Brandeis' commitment to the Rose family to maintain the museum.

Thomas Reilly, the University's outside legal counsel on the lawsuit, said in an interview with the Justice that the decision to move the case to the probate court implies a lack of urgency in the lawsuit.

"The Rose Art Museum is open. The plaintiffs were claiming that it's closed; that's simply not true. They were claiming that [there] was a sale of paintings that was imminent; that's simply not true. So there are serious misrepresentations in the complaint, but the bottom line is the Court wouldn't take their case and didn't take their case, " said Reilly.

Lee, the chairman of the Rose Board of Overseers, said in an interview that he was not displeased with the court's decision to transfer the case.

The lawsuit additionally claims that Brandeis has accelerated the process of selling works of art but does not provide any evidence of such actions. Lee would not comment on this particular aspect of the lawsuit but said that the complainants were gathering "lots of documentation."

Reilly initially called this allegation premature in a comment to the press after the lawsuit was initially filed July 27 and has maintained that it is not an accurate assertion. "The plaintiffs have represented that [the University has accelerated the process of selling the art], but that is simply not the case," he said.

Provost Marty Krauss said in an interview with the Justice that although she is not familiar with all of the legacies of the suit,"They didn't give any evidence. I don't know what they're referring to," she said.

According to Lee, the lawsuit's assertion that Brandeis has a commitment to the Rose family and the complainants to keep the Rose fully functional as a public art museum stems from the founding documents that were written when Edward and Bertha Rose first prepared to donate money to create the museum. Included in the lawsuit is a letter written in 1968 by Edward Rose stipulating that funds from the museum could only be used to purchase other artwork; the letter was signed by Abraham Sachar, Brandeis' president at that time. "It's clear that the president, Abraham Sachar at the time, and Ed and Bertha Rose made a compact to have a public art museum in the documents," said Lee.

When asked about that particular letter, Reilly said that he could not comment on specific documents but that "everything would unfold" during the litigation process and that Brandeis would have a chance to tell its story. He added that both he and other lawyers involved in the case have been in contact with the court.