Quote:
Originally Posted by Midtowner
What I think is even more interesting is that Schultz is trying to raise a claim which doesn't really affect him. He's not injured if the sales contract was breached in that the PBC didn't deal with Seattle in good faith. Seattle isn't even a party to this lawsuit.
I could be crazy, but I don't even see how we even get to the merits of this case without a FRCP 12(b)(6) FTW.
|
You're right, but I think the meat of his claims (which I think are honestly pretty weak) isn't the good faith dealings with Seattle as much as it is fraud in the inducement- i.e.: Bennett led the seller to believe he would not move the team, but he clearly always planned to do so (if you're buying what he's selling, which I don't think we are).
Therein lies the complete weakness of Schltz's suit: the main quote has been chopped: Bennett said he planned no never moving ASSUMING an arena deal was worked out...how is that bad faith? At the WORST, his emails say he wouldn't own the team if it stayed in Seattle, he'd get his "sweet flip." Which, of course, just shows how he was planning to ABIDE by the contract! I mean, come on!
It's hard not to conflate the two lawsuits though.... Does the ownership's random emails regarding a possible move before the year was up constitute fraud? Probably not. You can't scream BAD FAITH just because the opposing party noticed that maybe it wouldn't get done and sent a few emails about it.
Anyway Midtowner, I enjoy readin gyour analyses of the situation. My money says they don't get a perliminary injunction mainly based on the fact that the judge doubts the ability of Schultz to win on the merits at trial. At that point, you bet SChultz will disppear- he's not going to sink money in a suit that has basically been 85% decided.