There was one difference in the Minnesota case. Rather than an owner wanting to move the team, this was an instance where the league wanted to contract and completely disappear the team. I don't know if the fact that there is an actual owner would make any difference in this situation, but they are not completely analgous.

I'm not really trying to help or hurt Seattle's argument as much as just understand what that argument is and based on Midtowner's explanation, it's seems to be a sentimental one more than anything and I was wondering what the legal basis was for arguing that if a team provides an unusual amount of sentimental value for a community, it then becomes responsible for the tangential economic impact of it's presence in such a way that it may not only have to compensate the community for the loss of that sentiment by way of monetary damages, but may also be forced to execute specific performance to maintain that sentiment. Maybe they could argue that was the intent of the specific performance clause all along, which may be their angle altogether.

However, if it's based only on the sentiment (i.e championships, all-stars, celebrities status of players, community culture, atmosphere, etc.), as the text of the district court's opinion Midtowner provided above suggests, then, again, that can be argued for a broader range of businesses and industries. No doubt some businesses become institutions in their communities, not just for the service they provide, but for the cultural status and sense of identity and community they create.

Cities name streets after businessmen all the time. Hell, we almost named a street after a hotel chain. Some companies in smaller communities become the de facto center of the community's culture and not just in a symbolic way like sports teams do. And some serve as icons for even the biggest of markets. Are they responsible for economic impact of their cultural importance to such a degree that they are legally obligated to provide that economic benefit in monetary damages if they leave that community? I guess they are arguing that if you have a contractual agreement with the city, that you are responsible for the economic impact you provide to that city and the better you are at what you do, the more you are responsible for.

It's interesting.

Well, BDP, I think that it is an argument [the emotional hullabaloo], but I don't think it's a great one.

In our present case, we already have a temporary injunction in place. The case I cited to was about a temporary injunction. I'm not sure what the standards for issuing such a thing under Seattle law would be, but generally speaking, a temporary injunction is issued in a case to preserve the status quo until the merits can truly be decided. What needs to be shown is that if the defendant is allowed to do the thing he wants to do, the plaintiff (or other party) will suffer irreparable harm. Sometimes, there's a requirement that there's a likelihood that the plaintiff will win on the merits, but I don't know if that's the case here.

Just keep in mind that the two matters are extremely different as the Sonics litigation is far past the point of a temporary injunction -- in fact, in the interest of expediency, it the PBC just let Seattle have a pass on that issue so that they could go to trial.

The standard at trial is nowhere near the same. This is just an example of the sort of argument Seattle is going to employ to show why the equitable remedy is necessary.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

A couple of new developments.........


Documents from potential Sonics buyers to remain sealed

A federal judge ruled documents subpoenaed from a group that attempted to buy the Seattle SuperSonics from their Oklahoma-based owners can remain sealed.

U.S. District Judge Martha Pechman ruled Thursday that documents from Seattle developer Matt Griffin's group that were labeled for "attorney's eyes only" can remain confidential.

In seeking to have the documents unsealed, attorneys for SuperSonics owner Clay Bennett accused the potential owners and the city of Seattle of duplicity in an effort to force him to sell the team.

Pechman ruled that the SuperSonics didn't make a good-faith effort to resolve the document dispute and failed to abide by an agreed-upon rule requiring 10 days to pass before challenging the confidentiality of documents.

Local News | Documents from potential Sonics buyers to remain sealed | Seattle Times Newspaper


Microsoft mogul Steve Ballmer has been subpoenaed by attorneys for the Sonics owners. In a filinig dated April 28, Ballmer's attorney Llewelyn Pritchard acknowledged receipt of the subpoena.

It's believed that Ballmer will be deposed even though the discovery process was supposed to have concluded April 30.

Ballmer led a local investment group that offered to pay $150 million toward a $300 million KeyArena renovation project and buy the team from Clay Bennett.

Sonics | The Seattle Times

That's good news.. does it include the email exchanges?

__________________
" You've Been Thunder Struck ! "

All it means is items from the northwest contingent won't end up in the press as easily as items from the PBC ended up in the press. Not a biggie either way.. PBC attorneys get to see what they get to see, they just don't distribute copies freely amongst their clients, or the press.

For those who dinna realize early on, watching litigation unfold over weeks and months is far less interesting and exciting than when only the key bits are put together for 1 30-60 minutes show. Sorry bout that, just the nature of the beast.

I have to say this part sucks big time. Since one of the major points of issue here is "good faith efforts on the part of the Sonics" you would like to keep that language used by the Judge out of everything you do. If she says it once she can say it again. The attorneys for the Sonics should be going out of the way to be as accommodating as possible and let the City and Ballmer be the obstructionist. They had the perfect chance to do this with the "FAO" requirement from the Ballmer group’s evidence but the Sonics seemed to have missed an opportunity to show just how uncooperative the City of Seattle has been.

Finally, if you agreed to a 10 day waiting period why would you try and file a motion before the 10 days was up? That seems kind of amateur. If you are going to file early then you need to put in your motion why think the 10 days waiting period will hurt your case. This is the first time in the whole case that I have been discouraged.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

Completely pointless. This kind of pisses me off.

From the actual article ...
> The Sonics' filing came two days before the NBA approved Bennett's
> bid to relocate the team to Oklahoma City.

Gee, filed early, in time to be almost certain the filing hits the press and gives talking heads and writers something to fuss over in the day or so before the vote ... whoa, how on earth could something like that happen?

Such a coinkydink that was, yesireeee bob.

Pardon moi, I feel a Gundy rising up

I disagree. This stuff is no big deal. Discovery disputes are par for the course in civil cases, particularly where there are big law firms on both sides. Here is where the big hours get billed.

The judge's ruling that documents marked "for attorney's eyes only" remain sealed is nothing really surprising. If those documents met the requirements for attorney/client privilege, then they're going to be sealed and that's all there is to it.

My guess is that there's plenty out there already to prove a conspiracy by the city. Lots of circumstantial evidence at the minimum.

Why that's important is that for Seattle to be asking for an equitable remedy, they must have "clean hands." Which means that Seattle, et. al., can't have participated in bad conduct themselves if they are asking the court to unwind the bad conduct of the PBC in this case.

Whether the PBC attorneys show good faith in discovery is really irrelevant to the disposition of the case. It has bupkiss to do with the merits.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Starting in 2010, we get to be the city with "THE Lease". lol

Oklahoma City says team must relocate, regardless of ownership | NewsOK.com

last night one of the news channels had the latest comment by mark cuban... and the girl who's house i was at changed the channel before i could hear what he had to say now.
did anyone see that or have a link to it online somewhere?

It's Mark Cuban, who cares what he has to say.

I look forward to the Sonics (or whatever they're called) beating up on the Mavs.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

He was probably whining again about OKC being too close to Dallas and losing money because if a team were in OKC they wouldn't drive to see his team. I've heard that rant before....

In 2010 he can relocate to Seattle if he thinks a team should be there so bad. If he moves then it will be good for the Spurs, Sonics, Hornets, Trail Blazers, and Rockets. Doesn't he care about the NBA?

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

Looks like OKC is putting in their two cents. I don't know if it would matter if the sale of the team was rescinded, but I'm glad OKC is making there position known.

City says NBA team must move here | NewsOK.com

By Nolan Clay
Staff Writer
Oklahoma City officials contend that the Seattle SuperSonics must relocate by contract to Oklahoma City "regardless of who owns the Team.”


Officials also reveal in a legal letter that Oklahoma City is prepared to sue in federal court to force the relocation.

The nine-page letter was sent Thursday to an attorney for the former owners of the Sonics. The former owners on April 22 asked a federal judge in Seattle to overturn the 2006 sale of the NBA team. They want the Sonics sold "to an honest buyer who desires to keep the Sonics in Seattle.”

The former owners are led by Howard Schultz, the chief executive officer of Starbucks, a popular coffee chain.

Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett said Friday, "We felt it was important that they understood our position. It was meant for informational purposes only. How it's received, I can't predict, but that was the purpose.”

The former owners' attorney, Richard Yarmuth of Seattle, declined to comment Friday.

The Oklahoma-based owners of the Sonics want to play in Oklahoma City, starting next season. They face two hurdles: the former owners' lawsuit and a separate lawsuit filed by the city of Seattle.

Seattle is suing to force the team to play two more seasons at Seattle's KeyArena because of a lease there. A trial on Seattle's lawsuit is set to start June 16 in Seattle.

In the legal letter, Oklahoma City's attorney wrote that the city already has "valid and enforceable agreements with the Team requiring it relocate to Oklahoma City at the end of the current lease with the City of Seattle.”

The move could be as soon as this summer if the judge in Seattle lets the team out of the lease there early. The agreement with Oklahoma City requires the team to play in Oklahoma City for 15 years.

Oklahoma City Assistant Municipal Counselor Wiley L. Williams wrote the team must relocate even if the former owners succeed in their lawsuit to overturn the sale. He wrote Oklahoma City is committed "to honor, uphold and to enforce the OKC NBA Agreements, as needed.”

"There is an expectation by City leadership and citizens that the owners of the Team, whomever they may be, will honor all of the Team's contractual obligations with the City — including the contractual obligation to relocate to Oklahoma City and to play home games at the Ford Center for the duration of the term of the lease,” the Oklahoma City assistant municipal counselor wrote.

How much is at stake?
Williams wrote Oklahoma City will spend as much as $120 million on projects to upgrade the Ford Center and build a practice facility. He wrote Oklahoma City would be obligated to sue on behalf of its taxpayers to force the team to relocate. He wrote the city also could seek damages.

He wrote, "Damages ... will be substantial.”

Any lawsuit by Oklahoma City would be filed in federal court in Oklahoma City.

The former owners want the sale overturned because they contend the Oklahoma-based buyers lied to them. The former owners contend the new owners never intended to keep the team in Seattle, as promised. Schultz has said he doesn't want the team back, just for it to be sold to a buyer committed to keeping it in Seattle.

Sonics Chairman Clay Bennett has said he made good-faith efforts and spent millions of dollars to keep the team in Washington. "We tried the best we knew how to try,” he said April 18.

Just a helpful hint when posting articles from Daily Oklahoman or Journal Record, you'll have to delete the "ads" and fix spacing, otherwise they get included as above. Thanks for posting the article though...

Metro is right, you always have to clean-up Oklahoman articles. Here's a tip though: Click on the icon of the printer in a news story - that's the 'Print Version'. It's much, much easier to cut 'n paste from that version.

Not a lawyer, of course, but...

if a court should rule that PBC obtained the Sonics under false pretenses, then leased the Ford Center, it would seem to me the city's complaint is with the PBC, not anyone in Seattle.

The city's complaint would be with any owner of the team who refuses to relocate the team to OKC when the lease becomes active in 2010. Where I would think this might have some legal merit is the fact that Schultz isn't really asking for true recission. If he were, and he got the team back, I would think it would erase Bennett's ability to sign a lease with the city of OKC. But, since he's asking for the team to go into a trust, he's not truly turning back the clock to the day before the team was sold and I think that creates a legal grey area. I think.....not a lawyer.

But, I think this is just a warning shot over the bow to Schultz, because the lawsuit can be filed whether there's legal merit or not. It's telling him that anyone who buys the team, were his suit to prosper, will be facing a federal lawsuit from a city. That's money out of the new buyer's pocket up front, as well as legal hassles and the potential that he might really have to move the team to OKC, as he won't know that answer when he buys the team. That might make a new buyer goosey, which might end with the Sonics in limbo....Bennett et al don't own them and no one wants to buy them. I think this is an attempt to give Schultz pause, and realize this thing might not be as simple as filing a lawsuit and sitting back to see what happens.

Point is well taken. If Bennett and company must abide by a previous owner's contract to play at Key for the next two years, then he or other future owner's must abide by the contract to play in OKC. The federal judge has to take this into consideration when she rules on the present contract. She will be setting precedent for future rulings in OKC. Even if she declares Bennett's ownership invalid, she must rule in favor of all contracts signed by said ownership group to be valid. Otherwise a contract made with players, vendors, et al would be invalid. Can you imagine the mess she would create with that? Players traded would have to return to the teams they were traded to. If the Celtics win out, where would a championship team be playing members who were illegally traded to them. You just gotta love this...lol

All I know is if I am part of PBC, get the teamed stripped from me, and then am asked to sponsor the new OKC team (owned by someone with ties to Schultz), I am telling them eat you know what and die. Think about it, Big McLendon and the boys are probably the highest paying sponsors of an OKC NBA team. They are not going to help the new guys make money, even if it helps the city.

Don't make a poop where you're gonna make your soup.

FYI...folks it's McClendon not McLendon.

Listening to espn radio today, they briefly mentioned the suit by OKC and said it was nothing more than posturing, that "if" Schultz won the lawsuit, any contracts signed after the purchase would be considered void. They also said something like the Schultz lawsuit is the only one that matters, that the City of Seattle lawsuit will have zero impact for either OKC or Seattle.