If you missed earlier link(s), Doug Dawg has a fairly well thought out take on things. Doug Dawgz Blog: What's This Crud About No Movie Tonight? (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2008/04/whats-this-crud-about-no-movie-tonight.html)

zcamaro, unlike the great state of Oklahoma, Washington does not give you free access to their case law in a searchable database. To do so would take access to Westlaw and more time than I'm interested in investing (I do have access to the Washington Westlaw database, but I have no interest in trying to find a bunch of Oklahoma companion cases).

I'm not 100% case law is going to be a big deal here anyhow. Issues of standing are similar from state to state. Standing is going to be a hell of a hurdle for the Schultz group. Then, to prove Fraud, they have a tough burden there as well.

I linked Doug Loudenback's legal memo earlier, which admittedly was written using Oklahoma law (you should expect that from an Oklahoma lawyer), still hit all of the high points and addressed them with what should be the black-letter law in Washington, Oklahoma (and according to Obama) th eother 55 states.

The blog posting at Doug Dawgz blog was what I was referring to in my mini rant. I have seen several articles talking about how Shultz's lawsuit has "legs" or "teeth" yet there is nothing to go with it. All the lawyer "experts" talk about are the emails, never anything about the merits that must be met. Everything that I have read using lawyer "speak" ie: what must he prove and to what degree of proof; says Shultz has no chance. I guess that would not make for good reading.

After reading Doug's blog I almost have to laugh at Schult's lawsuit, and I do laugh at Munson's take on the situation. I love the part in the sales contract that says any other promises made, either written or oral, that are not part of the contract are not vaild. That pretty much seals the deal for me.

If keeping the team in Seattle was such a big deal to BCOS why didn't they include it in the contract? Oh that's right, Schulz wanted to and Bennett said no. Now somehow Schultz feels he was mislead. Really Schultz? When did you figure that out? When Bennett said no to putting a binding requirement in the sales contract or when he applied for relocation?

Here's another article by Munson about the letter OKC sent last week. Nothing new really just more discussion material:

ESPN - OKC's latest demands muddle Sonics' future even more - NBA (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=munson_lester&id=3396046)

SURVEY SAYS
From a survey conducted at the request of Steve Ballmer's investment group: "A plan has been proposed by four local businessmen to invest $150 million to upgrade the KeyArena and keep Sonics basketball in Seattle. Their plan requires that the state authorize the county and city to spend an additional $150 million for improvements to KeyArena paid for by taxes on restaurants and rental cars in King County. Would you support or oppose such a plan?"


13%

STRONGLY SUPPORT

17%
SOMEWHAT SUPPORT


47%
STRONGLY OPPOSE


12%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE


10%
DIDN'T KNOW

Look, it is this simple. No one in Seattle wants to own the Sonics there unless a new arena is built. Not Schultz, not Ballmer, not anyone. The Key Arena simply doesn't have the revenue streams to make an MBA team profitable. Ballmar had a chance to buy the team 2 years ago for about $60 million less and he choose not to. When Ballmer got the survey results back he saw that Washington was never going to allow a new arena to be built so he canceld his offer 2 days early. End of story.

The Key Arena simply doesn't have the revenue streams to make an MBA team profitable.

that MBA team you speak of sounds highly educated! heh, j/p

Here are articles today from the Seattle P-I and Times :

By GREG JOHNS
P-I REPORTER (from the Seattle P-I)

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman isn't planning to leave a lot of time between the city's court date with the Sonics and a lawsuit filed by former team owner Howard Schultz.

Pechman filed an order Monday setting the timing for scheduling the Schultz suit, asking the two sides to file their joint status report and discovery plan by June 30, four days after the city's trial is scheduled to end.

Once attorneys for Schultz and Sonics owner Clay Bennett submit their joint status report, Pechman will set a court date as well as deadlines for discovery and other pretrial work in that case.

In the city's suit, Pechman set the trial date for about five months after the joint status reports were filed.

If she follows a similar schedule in the Schultz case, it would go to trial sometime around November, or about when the NBA's next regular-season schedule begins.

The Sonics hope to be free to move to Oklahoma City in time for the upcoming season. But even without Schultz's suit, the city could keep the team in Seattle next year either by winning its own case against Bennett or by appealing a loss in the June trial.

The Schultz case involves the former Sonics owner seeking to overturn the 2006 sale of the team to Bennett's Oklahoma partnership on the charge of fraud, with Schultz claiming he was lied to about the group's intentions to make a good-faith effort to keep the team in Seattle.

The city's trial against Bennett's group is scheduled to begin June 16 in Pechman's Seattle courtroom. The city seeks to require the Sonics to play the remaining two years of their lease agreement at KeyArena, while Bennett's group seeks the right to pay the remaining rent on the deal and be free to leave immediately.

AND from the Times:

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman set a few dates in Howard Schultz's lawsuit against the Sonics ownership group.

The first two dates, June 16 and June 23, pertain to a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On June 23, Pechman requires attorneys to meet with her in person or via teleconference and present a Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan, which will be used to determine a schedule for the case.

The attorneys must provide a statement about the nature and complexity of the case.

Other questions that must be answered include whether attorneys want the case to be decided by mediation or arbitration, whether they want a jury trial, the date the case will be ready for trial, the number of trial days required and the length of discovery.

So, again, wishing I were a lawyer and knew more, I've got questions:

I found this poking around the internet:

"One rule of thumb is that if the suit seeks money damages—the traditional remedy under the common law—there is almost surely a right to a jury trial, while if the suit seeks only equitable relief—like an injunction—there almost surely is no right to a jury trial."

Would Schultz's suit not be an equitable relief suit? Or, is this a message from Pechman that this suit will end up with a damages award, not recission, as can arbitration or mediation result in recission? Can a jury trial result in recission? I would be interested in legal oppinions.

Would Schultz's suit not be an equitable relief suit? Or, is this a message from Pechman that this suit will end up with a damages award, not recission, as can arbitration or mediation result in recission? Can a jury trial result in recission? I would be interested in legal oppinions.

It's purely an equitable remedy he's seeking as far as I know.

For equitable remedies, there is no jury trial -- there's no right to it and there's no possibility of it.

It's purely an equitable remedy he's seeking as far as I know.

For equitable remedies, there is no jury trial -- there's no right to it and there's no possibility of it.

His remedy might be one in equity...but he is alleging "fraud". Whether or not there was fraud is a "fact" question that must be determined at a trial by a "trier of fact" (jury). Unless both sides waive jury. That may be the best thing for Clay and bunch because the jury would be Seattle folks...but if they don't waive it would have to be to a jury.

His remedy might be one in equity...but he is alleging "fraud". Whether or not there was fraud is a "fact" question that must be determined at a trial by a "trier of fact" (jury). Unless both sides waive jury. That may be the best thing for Clay and bunch because the jury would be Seattle folks...but if they don't waive it would have to be to a jury.

Yes, fraud is a question of fact which is for the jury to decide. The remedies portion of the trial would be a separate issue. If the jury decides there was fraud, it's up to the judge to impose an equitable remedy.

Yes, fraud is a question of fact which is for the jury to decide. The remedies portion of the trial would be a separate issue. If the jury decides there was fraud, it's up to the judge to impose an equitable remedy.

And if a jury (or judge if all waive JT) finds fraud...PBC has problems.

And if a jury (or judge if all waive JT) finds fraud...PBC has problems.

Maybe, maybe not. Since Schultz has only asked for an equitable remedy, actually getting one, even if there is fraud, is not guaranteed.

The "throw as much **** at the wall and see if anything sticks" strategy continues.....

Breach of contract alleged in Sonics suit
By Jim Brunner

Seattle Times staff reporter


Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz added a "breach of contract" claim Tuesday to his lawsuit against Sonics owner Clay Bennett — arguing Bennett failed to honor the terms of his purchase agreement when he proposed a $500 million arena plan he knew was doomed to fail.

In an amended complaint filed in federal court, Schultz's attorneys argued that Bennett's Oklahoma City-based partnership breached its contract with Schultz by failing to use "good faith best efforts" for a full 12 months to get an arena deal in the Seattle area.

That requirement was set out in the purchase and sale agreement when Bennett's group bought the Sonics and Storm in 2006 for $350 million.

Instead of proposing a reasonable arena plan, Schultz's latest filing claims Bennett pushed a $500 million Renton arena that would have required "unprecedented amounts in public subsidies" with lease terms Bennett "knew would be unacceptable" to state lawmakers.

After the Legislature rejected that plan in April 2007, Bennett "ceased meaningful efforts" to land a deal instead of continuing through last October, as required by his contract with Schultz, the new lawsuit filing claims.

The latest Schultz filing contained no new revelation or internal Sonics e-mails. But it does add the "breach of contract" argument to the "negligent misrepresentation" and "fraudulent inducement" claims previously asserted in the lawsuit — giving a judge or jury another possible reason to rule against the team.

Schultz filed the lawsuit, citing e-mails uncovered in the city of Seattle's separate lawsuit against Bennett's group which showed Sonics owners enthusiastically chatting about moving the team to Oklahoma.

The lawsuit, filed last month seeks to have the Sonics placed into a "constructive trust" by the court, which could then transfer the team back to local owners. No trial date has been set.

A spokesman for Bennett could not be reached for comment Tuesday evening. In the past, Bennett has defended his efforts on the $500 million Renton arena, noting that he spent millions of dollars on the proposal.

Sonics | Breach of contract alleged in Sonics suit | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004428236_soni21m.html)

Seems like he just wants a more legit claim thrown in there, as the "constructive trust" argument is so out there, he might need to put something more concrete down. Also, this has a chance of forcing them to actual trial on that, as "good faith efforts" would be a question of fact for a jury to decide.

I am getting sick of this sh*t.

A breech of a contract that Schultz himself claims should even exist? What I don't understand in all of this is that Bennett has owned the team for 2 years and they are still located in Seattle. If the requirment was to keep the team in Seattle then for crying out loud - they are still there. Shouldn't these lawsuits be filed AFTER the team leaves Seattle.

Seems like he just wants a more legit claim thrown in there, as the "constructive trust" argument is so out there, he might need to put something more concrete down. Also, this has a chance of forcing them to actual trial on that, as "good faith efforts" would be a question of fact for a jury to decide.

I am getting sick of this sh*t.

Me too. I don't see any way you could get a fair jury trial on this issue in Seattle or Oklahoma City. This would be like trying to get a fair jury trial in Seattle regarding Seattle relocating Boeing headquarters. People in Seattle may not want to pay for the team, pay for it's building or even go to the games. But that doesn't mean they want someone else to have them. I wish I could have faith in a trial by jury, but people are human, and humans aren't always completely impartial and reasonable, even when serving on a jury.

A breech of a contract that Schultz himself claims should even exist?

This is normal in the law. It was explained to me like this: I never borrowed your pot, it was broken when you gave it to me, you broke it after I gave it back to you in good condition. All of those can be used as defenses at the same time.

IMO, a jury trial could be a good thing, if they can narrow it down to people that really have no interest in BB.

It seems a majority of people in Seattle have no interest in the Sonics or where they play. If PBC can get enough of those people on the jury, then it becomes more about the law, and less about feelings.

I think ti's still in Seattle's best interst to settle. Best case scenario, they have the Sonics stay, make very little money off it, they leave in 2 years anyway, and Caly & Co. don't pay off the KeyArena debt. I mean, that's their BEST case scenario! I can' tbelieve they're spending taxpayer dollars on this.

This whole thing is starting to make me weary. I don't think Schultz will win his case but I do believe they will be there til the end of the lease. It's obvious that Seattle doesn't care about thier future with the NBA. It is all about ego now. They can't seem to grasp that a bunch of Oklahomans are getting the best of them.

What is good about all of this is that nobody outside of the Seattle or OKC markets really care or aren't making much noise about the situation.

Saberman - it isn't that a majority of people in Seattle have no interest in basketball, according to Ballmer's own survey 50% of Washington state wants the Sonics to leave. That is pretty good odds on getting at least on member of the jury to have reasonable doubt. I say go for the jury trial.

Civil juries don't work that way Kerry.

I am not a real attorney, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Select.

I just ran across this Seattle area article...It seems to make some good points and it makes me wonder if that "sweet flip" email may just come into play with the Schultz case...Apologies if this article has already been discussed

http://www.crosscut.com/washington-legislature/13664/Does+Clay+Bennett's+'sweet+flip'+exonerate+him

**Not sure why my link didn't work**

The sweet flip email, in my mind, just reaffirms Clay's intention to not remove the team from Seattle. The "good faith" was needed to find an arena deal in Seattle. Never was the good faith deal that Clay had to own the team in Seattle...just keep the team in Seattle. If he sells the team after an arena deal is made, how is that not good faith to keep the team in Seattle? Answer: it's more than good faith.

and the twists continue......

Move plan denied by McClendon | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/move-plan-denied-by-mcclendon/article/3247467/?tm=1211518371)

Hopefully the people who backed out of the deal because the team wasn't definitely moving will be able to back up that story in court. I agree with OKCMallen that the "sweet flip" if anything proves there was some acceptance of the possibility of the team staying, and negates a definite "plan" to move the team immediately. Schultz never specified that the Bennett ownership group had to own the team indefinitely, nor was that ever clearly a major part of the discussion as it's never mentioned in the side letter.

Looks like the other side has some dirty hands as well...Big shock

Sonics minority owner surprised arena deal not made (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/364478_arena24.html)

**On the flip side, the Sonics' lawyers sharply questioned Tim Ceis, the deputy mayor of Seattle, about whether he tried to undercut Bennett's efforts to build a new arena in Renton.

In his deposition, Ceis acknowledged he "did express our concerns about the status of KeyArena should a new arena be built" and that he hoped the Legislature would consider giving financial assistance to the city to deal with the remaining debt at the arena if Bennett's effort had succeeded.

The attorney asked Ceis if he lobbied against the Renton facility, but Ceis said he merely had informal discussions with several state politicians in order to remind them that Seattle would need help in such a situation.

In a separate deposition, Seattle City Council president Richard Conlin said he had conversations with "nine or more legislators" from the Seattle area expressing concerns over the Renton proposal's effect on KeyArena, including communications with House Speaker Frank Chopp.

Conlin said the Renton proposal would "cause some potential problems and was not the best choice."

Ceis also acknowledged the city knew Initiative 91 might present problems for its $300 million KeyArena renovation proposal and that he told the NBA one of the potential solutions was having the city council repeal the initiative, which was approved by 70 percent in a vote of Seattle residents in a request to only give public money to stadium projects that provided an agreed-upon rate of return.

He said another option might have been to transfer ownership of KeyArena "to the state or another public authority" so it was no longer a city facility. But Ceis insisted the best way to deal with I-91 would be to comply with its restrictions, which he thought was possible once Steve Ballmer's group agreed to fund half the proposal with private money.

As for why the city was pushing to keep the team after voters had openly rejected such a financing plan, Ceis said, "In politics you sometimes must lead even though the public may not yet be aware of all the issues and may not have yet finally determined where they are."

Sonics attorney Brad Taylor also repeatedly asked Ceis if the city has an understanding with the K&L Gates law firm about what communication it can and cannot have with Ballmer's group about city-privileged matters, since the firm represented both groups at various times.

Taylor called the ploy "a shell game" and indicated there "obviously is going to be some major issues as far as K&L Gates as far as the attorney/client privilege."

Ceis indicated in his testimony that Walker, one of the minority partners in Howard Schultz's ownership group, began advising the city in the fall of 2007 after contacting the city and saying "he'd be available to help in our efforts to enforce the lease."

Taylor later pointed out that Walker also was advising the Ballmer group.

The Sonics' attorney also questioned Ceis about not upholding a confidentiality agreement made during a meeting with NBA officials in New York. Ceis acknowledged he told Save Our Sonics founder Brian Robinson of the meeting, but didn't disclose what was discussed.**

Love this part...Sure I didn't disclose what was discussed **wink wink**

Ceis acknowledged he told Save Our Sonics founder Brian Robinson of the meeting, but didn't disclose what was discussed.**

It looks to me like the City of Seattle has some explaining to do. In about 3 weeks they will get their chance.

From newsok.com.......

Seattle officials lobbied against arena funding
By Randy Ellis
Staff Writer

The current and former president of the Seattle City Council lobbied Washington state lawmakers last year against helping fund construction of a new NBA arena in various cities in the greater Seattle area, testimony has revealed.

“I’d say I probably talked to half of the members of the Seattle delegation,” Seattle City Council President Richard Conlin testified in a deposition released this week. He was a council member at the time and became president five months ago.

Seattle Councilman Nick Licata, who was president in 2007, said he also lobbied against providing substantial public funding.

Licata said he encouraged lawmakers not to “make a large public investment.”

The SuperSonics’ Oklahoma owners have accused Seattle city officials of duplicity. The owners contend city officials privately sabotaged their efforts to obtain a new arena that could have made the team economically viable while publicly accusing the owners of failing to make a good faith effort to keep the team in the Seattle.

Conlin said city council members wanted the Sonics to stay in Seattle's KeyArena and believed construction of a new arena in Bellevue, Renton or some other nearby location would not be in the city's best interest.

"Well, our preference is, we think that KeyArena is an excellent facility,” Conlin said of his discussions with lawmakers. "And so we suggested that KeyArena was a very good place to maintain the basketball team. And that, in, fact, if you built another arena, that that could potentially not work well for the region in terms of having two competing venues.”

Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis said he also talked to Washington legislators about the Oklahoma owners' efforts to obtain public money to finance a new arena in the Seattle area, but said he would not characterize his discussions as lobbying.

"I did not ask them to take an action one way or another,” Ceis said.

He said he told lawmakers that if they did fund a new arena, he hoped they would also provide financial assistance to the City of Seattle so it could meet its debt obligations on KeyArena.



Seattle officials lobbied against arena funding | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/seattle-officials-lobbied-against-arena-funding/article/3248093/?tm=1211604670&pg=2)

Oops! That might help explain Frank Chopp's "dead in the water" comment about Bennett's arena proposal one day after he presented it to the Washington Legislature

Full McClendon Deposition posted in pdf, (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2008/05/24/2004436369.pdf)http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2008/05/24/2004436369.pdf

From newsok.com.......

Seattle officials lobbied against arena funding
By Randy Ellis
Staff Writer

The current and former president of the Seattle City Council lobbied Washington state lawmakers last year against helping fund construction of a new NBA arena in various cities in the greater Seattle area, testimony has revealed.

“I’d say I probably talked to half of the members of the Seattle delegation,” Seattle City Council President Richard Conlin testified in a deposition released this week. He was a council member at the time and became president five months ago.

Seattle Councilman Nick Licata, who was president in 2007, said he also lobbied against providing substantial public funding.

Licata said he encouraged lawmakers not to “make a large public investment.”

The SuperSonics’ Oklahoma owners have accused Seattle city officials of duplicity. The owners contend city officials privately sabotaged their efforts to obtain a new arena that could have made the team economically viable while publicly accusing the owners of failing to make a good faith effort to keep the team in the Seattle.

Conlin said city council members wanted the Sonics to stay in Seattle's KeyArena and believed construction of a new arena in Bellevue, Renton or some other nearby location would not be in the city's best interest.

"Well, our preference is, we think that KeyArena is an excellent facility,” Conlin said of his discussions with lawmakers. "And so we suggested that KeyArena was a very good place to maintain the basketball team. And that, in, fact, if you built another arena, that that could potentially not work well for the region in terms of having two competing venues.”

Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis said he also talked to Washington legislators about the Oklahoma owners' efforts to obtain public money to finance a new arena in the Seattle area, but said he would not characterize his discussions as lobbying.

"I did not ask them to take an action one way or another,” Ceis said.

He said he told lawmakers that if they did fund a new arena, he hoped they would also provide financial assistance to the City of Seattle so it could meet its debt obligations on KeyArena.



Seattle officials lobbied against arena funding | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/seattle-officials-lobbied-against-arena-funding/article/3248093/?tm=1211604670&pg=2)


The point of all of this is the "clean hands" doctrine. The clean hands doctrine requires a plaintiff in equity to approach the court with clean hands. In other words, if the plaintiff is in a hole and he wants the court to dig him out of it, the hole cannot be of the plaintiff's own making.

This is significant because the remedies sought in both cases are equitable, so the plaintiffs, if they have acted in a bad manner could very well have torpedoed themselves.

The point of all of this is the "clean hands" doctrine. The clean hands doctrine requires a plaintiff in equity to approach the court with clean hands. In other words, if the plaintiff is in a hole and he wants the court to dig him out of it, the hole cannot be of the plaintiff's own making.

This is significant because the remedies sought in both cases are equitable, so the plaintiffs, if they have acted in a bad manner could very well have torpedoed themselves.

HUGE deal! hahahahahah, I love it. We needed some good news on this and I think we have it.

I've been watching this with amusement.
Now many of you know sometimes what we think is fair isn't what the court will rule.
But I have to say this" I told you this is too good to be true, or even "I told you so."

I've been watching this with amusement.
Now many of you know sometimes what we think is fair isn't what the court will rule.
But I have to say this" I told you this is too good to be true, or even "I told you so."


What's "too good to be true"?

City says Bennett's sincerity no longer a key issue
By Jim Brunner

Seattle Times staff reporter

Lawyers for Seattle have spent the past few months digging up and publicizing a steady stream of embarrassing e-mails from Sonics owners, arguing they prove Clay Bennett's Oklahoma City partnership never made a good-faith attempt to keep the team here.

But with a trial looming in less than three weeks, the city's attorneys are now claiming that Bennett's intentions are essentially irrelevant to the lawsuit over whether the Sonics must play through the end of the KeyArena lease in September 2010.

As part of a flurry of pretrial motions filed this week, Seattle's attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman to prohibit Bennett from delving into how much time and money he spent trying to persuade state lawmakers to approve a $500 million arena in Renton.

Bennett has said he spent millions of dollars and exhausted every reasonable arena possibility in the Seattle area before deciding to move the Sonics to Oklahoma City. His attorneys were expected to detail at trial how much he spent on lobbyists and consultants.

But the sincerity of Bennett's arena efforts is "irrelevant to whether the Lease is valid, fair, or clear; whether damages are an adequate remedy for breach of the Lease," the city's attorneys argued in their motion.

Those questions should be reserved for a separate lawsuit filed by former Sonics owner Howard Schultz, the city argued. That lawsuit seeks to undo the 2006 sale of the Sonics, accusing Bennett of violating a promise — contained in his purchase agreement — to make "good faith best efforts" on an arena deal in the Seattle area for at least a year.

That's just one of several battles over what evidence and witnesses should be allowed at the trial, scheduled to begin June 16.

The Sonics want to prevent the city from calling local sports-radio host Mitch Levy and author Sherman Alexie as witnesses.

The city intends to call Levy, the host of KJR-AM's "Mitch in the Morning" program, to testify about fan interest in the Sonics. Alexie, a Sonics season ticketholder who has been writing a regular "Sonics Death Watch" column for the Stranger newspaper, is supposed to testify about the team's importance, especially to minority communities.

"Neither has any relevant testimonial knowledge. Both will only fuel the growing media circus. Both should be excluded," the Sonics' attorneys argued in their court filing, citing Alexie's "profanity-laced" views about Bennett's group.

Meanwhile, the city has asked Pechman to exclude several other pieces of evidence and arguments the Sonics want to raise at the coming trial:

• A poll conducted for the Sonics in January that found nearly two-thirds of 600 Seattle-area residents believed the team's departure would "make no difference" or that they would be "better off." By contrast, 57 percent of those polled said they'd be upset if the Mariners or Seahawks left. Seattle's attorneys argued the poll is irrelevant to the KeyArena lease and was tainted because it was conducted while the Sonics "were on their way to their worst record ever."

• Any evidence of "dysfunction" in the relationship between the city and the team. Sonics lawyers have cited the antagonistic relationship between current team owners and city leaders to argue the team should be allowed to leave KeyArena in exchange for a cash payment. But Seattle's lawyers argued that such personal feelings should not affect a "fully enforceable commercial contract."

• Evidence about a potential Sonics ownership group led by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. The Sonics have described Seattle's efforts to force a team sale to Ballmer as "a Machiavellian plan" that gives the city "unclean hands" in the lease case. But Seattle's attorneys argued that "there is nothing wrong with the city having discussions with a local group that wants to bring an NBA franchise to a renovated KeyArena."

• Statements by individual Seattle City Council members if the Sonics are claiming those statements represent the city's official position with regard to the team. For example, Sonics lawyers have cited Councilmember Nick Licata's February 2006 remark to Sports Illustrated that the economic impact of the team's departure would be "near zero." (He apologized for the remark a few months later.) Seattle's attorneys said such comments should not be taken as "a binding admission" on behalf of the entire city.

Paul Lawrence, an attorney with K&L Gates who is representing the city, said the series of pretrial motions is "an effort to keep the trial focused on what we think are the limited issues around specific performance [of the KeyArena lease]."

A spokesman for Bennett said the team would have no comment on the latest legal maneuvers.

A pretrial hearing in the Sonics lawsuit is set for June 6.

The six-day bench trial is scheduled to begin June 16 in federal court in Seattle.

Jim Brunner: 206-515-5628 or jbrunner@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

Sonics | City says Bennett's sincerity no longer a key issue | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004444890_sonics29m.html)

The point of all of this is the "clean hands" doctrine. The clean hands doctrine requires a plaintiff in equity to approach the court with clean hands. In other words, if the plaintiff is in a hole and he wants the court to dig him out of it, the hole cannot be of the plaintiff's own making.

This is significant because the remedies sought in both cases are equitable, so the plaintiffs, if they have acted in a bad manner could very well have torpedoed themselves.

Looks like Midtowner called this one. This is from a story in this mornings Oklahoman.....

"In preparation for the trial, attorneys for the team's owners have been questioning Seattle city officials about their discussions with a group of local investors who want to buy the team and keep it in Seattle.

Owners are "expected to argue this evidence supports an ‘unclean hands' defense” to the city's claim that the team should be required to play two more years in Seattle, the city attorneys said."

Seattle wants results of survey excluded from trial | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/seattle-wants-results-of-survey-excluded-from-trial/article/3249909/?tm=1212060718)

It just goes to show you -- billionaires in neither OKC nor Seattle are capable at managing a conspiracy properly.

It just goes to show you -- billionaires in neither OKC nor Seattle are capable at managing a conspiracy properly.

:LolLolLol

It just goes to show you -- billionaires in neither OKC nor Seattle are capable at managing a conspiracy properly.

:bow:

Haha. What a mess.

What a bunch of two-faced corrupt wind-bags. I can't believe the people in Seattle are falling for all of these shenanigans. They have but one entity to be mad at for losing their team -- their own city council.

After the polls cited in that latest article though, I have to think that their council was acting just like two-thirds of the city wanted....

dismayed, let it not be forgotten that 75% of Seattle voters approved Proposition I-91, you might say our sales tax vote in reverse except with even greater support. There's plenty of blame all the way around in Seattle and Washington, generally.

If I were a Seattle citizen, I would be mad at the completel WASTE of money the city is prompting through these lawsuits.

If I were a Seattle citizen, I would be mad at the completel WASTE of money the city is prompting through these lawsuits.Maybe their being told by their elected officials the same thing we were told by ours..... you have to spend money, to make money.

2/3rds+ of them don't want the team already, supposedly. The city is going on with it anyway.

A Sonics trial may get ugly -- expert
NBA should push for fast settlement, veteran lawyer says
By GREG JOHNS
P-I REPORTER

With less than two weeks remaining until the start of the city's trial against the Sonics, an attorney unaffiliated with either party says this could turn into the legal equivalent of a barroom brawl if the case gets to court.

The looming question now is whether the struggle over the Sonics' lease issue at KeyArena will reach Judge Marsha Pechman's courtroom for the opening gavel on June 16 or if the sides will come to some sort of pretrial agreement.

Longtime Seattle attorney Randy Aliment said he's surprised the situation has gone this far without resolution and notes that more than 90 percent of cases are resolved out of court.

From Aliment's perspective, both parties in this particular battle have significant motivation to find a tenable solution, as does the NBA.

"You'd think the NBA would pull both sides into a room, knock their heads together and say, 'Let's get this resolved,' because it will be a bloodbath in that courtroom," said Aliment, whose Williams, Kastner & Gibbs firm represented Ken Behring when the former Seahawks owner was attempting to move his team to Los Angeles in 1996.

Aliment remembers armed guards in the lobby of his firm's office during the highly emotional Behring situation, which ultimately was settled out of court when Behring agreed to sell the Seahawks to Paul Allen.

The Sonics case could get even more heated if it reaches Pechman's U.S. District courtroom, given the lengthy run-up of legal machinations, a number of well-publicized e-mails and other evidence and the fact the NBA has already approved a move of the franchise to Oklahoma City once it receives legal clearance from its KeyArena lease that is scheduled to expire after the 2009-10 season.

Aliment said both sides have hired the best trial lawyers in Seattle and he expects a no-holds-barred situation should the case proceed as scheduled.

"You've definitely got a three-ring circus going now," Aliment said. "From a straight legal standpoint, this thing is just about unprecedented. I'm thinking one of the only other comparable situations was when Al Davis and the Oakland Raiders filed suit and things got stupid down there. That one actually went to trial."

Davis filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL in 1982 when the league attempted to block his move to Los Angeles. Aliment said the issues are different in this case and in a suit filed by former Sonics owner Howard Schultz seeking to rescind the sale to Clay Bennett's ownership group, but the bottom line remains.

"In legal battles, it's all about a dispute," Aliment said. "Whether you're talking about antitrust or breach of contract or whatever, it's a fistfight. So lawyers are reaching into their bag to figure out whatever legal theory will rule the day.

"Here you've got breach of lease, you've got breach of contract, you've got fraud. But bottom line, what you really have is a fight. Somebody is trying to steal the team, somebody wants to keep the team, and that's all the city knows and all Clay Bennett knows

"That's why the NBA has to be looking at this thing saying, 'We've got to put a stop to this' or who knows where the fallout will end? Because once that fistfight erupts in court, it's like a bar where eventually it spills out into the street. You'd think somebody would want to stop this before it goes that far."

Aliment feels NBA commissioner David Stern should be concerned about how Seattle's situation is being viewed by other cities around the league and the precedent that would be set by the upcoming court battle, not to mention the potential ugliness of the Sonics playing two lame-duck seasons at KeyArena after the league has already approved their departure.

Both the city and the Sonics' owners have risks in proceeding to trial. Even if they win, the Sonics almost surely would face an appeals process that would prevent the team from moving to Oklahoma City by next season, which means at least another year of $30 million in losses while playing at KeyArena.

Additionally, Schultz's lawsuit looms as another hurdle in Bennett's path.

The city runs the risk of pushing for a solution without a clear-cut victory, given that the Sonics will be free to leave in two years even if the city wins its case to enforce the lease, unless Schultz's suit also succeeds.

Additionally, Aliment says that while the city's case appears strong, judges frequently hesitate to keep two warring parties together in a binding lease agreement and often award financial damages instead of insisting on a "specific performance" request such as forcing the Sonics to play their games in a bad situation.

Is there room to settle?

"From the city's standpoint, forced occupation here is going to be a difficult proposition because the team would only be here two years, the NBA is going to be upset and the prospects for a team long-term are problematic," Aliment said. "Some type of mediated solution where Bennett can take his toys back to Oklahoma and the city gets a different team, or Bennett gets a new team and we keep our Sonics, would obviously be the best.

"But it's going to take participation by the NBA and other owners to approve something like that," he said. "That's a tall order, as evidenced by the fact it hasn't been done yet."

If the sides are negotiating, they're doing so quietly, which would be expected at this juncture. Most cases come down to last-minute settlements and it's possible for an agreement to be made even during or after a trial. The questions are: Who has the most leverage and are both sides willing to give?

Pechman has a pretrial conference scheduled for Friday, at which she'll hand down rulings on motions by both sides, outline trial requirements and see if there is settlement progress.

From Aliment's perspective, it's surprising the situation has come this far.

"It can still happen and I have no firsthand knowledge of any of this," he said. "But one would think the NBA would get these parties together and say, 'Clay Bennett, you have a team. Seattle, you want a team. Let's let the team go to Oklahoma City and you will get your team in (some future) season.' And then have a squaring up of the money."

Should the battle actually be waged in court, Aliment says it's possible there will be no winners in the big picture, given the black eye the NBA would receive as well as the mixed legal bag that likely will remain even once a decision is rendered.

"It's like if your kid comes home and says, 'I got in fight today, but I beat him,' " Aliment said. "And you look at your kid and his face is all bloodied and bruised. I just think someone has to step in and stop this thing and find a solution."

A Sonics trial may get ugly -- expert says (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/365556_trial03.html)

Good article, really, except for the part where the guy is from Seattle and characterizes Clay as "stealing." Jesus' mercy...

If someone will rob me and leave me with $350 million, I'll even leave the door unlocked for 'em.

Esp if what they take was valued at, what- I forget, $275MM?

2/3rds+ of them don't want the team already, supposedly. The city is going on with it anyway.But isn't the City's issue which caused them to file this lawsuit more about the lease, and less about the team?

I would actually say no: the point is keeping the team, and the legal theory is about the lease. They don't stand to make any super-great amount of money off specific performance of the lease, and they've been OFFERED that money already.

The point i'm making is: a seemingly large marjority of citizens don't WANT the team for two more years. Seattle's leadership could have accepted a settlement offer earlier that would have paid all the debt on KeyArena and then some. They didn't accept it and are now using public funds to fight an expensive lawsuit that, at best, gives them two more seasons with a team that is losing tons of money, pisses off the NBA, KeyArena still in debt and not serviceable on a going-forward basis, that the citizens don't even seem to want, ALL IN HOPES that Clay will sell or be forced to sell...so as to please a minority of the population?

Does that sound like worthwhile civic expenditures? At least our expenditures make for economic investment if we get the team. They just have a short-lived 2 seasons with the Sonics if they win, and given that they COULD have KeyArena's debt paid off, they might actually be in a significantly worse position than if they settled or even win.

OKCMallen, I respectfully disagree. That vast majority of Seattleites do want to keep the Sonics. I'm guessing you're referring to the poll results recently published in the Oklahoman. First off, let's remember that this poll was financed by the OKC ownership group. As we all know, opinion polls can be deliberately engineered in order to generate certain responses. Has the hard data from the Seattle poll been released? Or were just the juicy bits funnelled through the Oklahoman? Taking the poll results at face value, only 7% of Seattle respondants felt "they would be better off" if the Sonics left. Not quite the "vast majority" is it, OKCMallen? Conversely, 31% of Seattle respondants said they "would be worse off." True, 58% said they would be indifferent...and I'm guessing a good a percentage of these folks truly don't care one way or the other. But I'm also guessing a good percentage of these respondants have been soured on the NBA experience over the last 3 years and have resigned themselves to the possible relocation of Sonics. Since Bennett bought the team, traded away the Sonics best players, implemented a limited media/player access policy, demanded $400M in public funds (with $0 from PBC) for the pure benefit of a "sweet flip" and was subsequently caught lying about his intentions in Seattle, many Sonics fans have washed their hands clean. I can't really say I blame them. Acceptance is the final stage of grief.

This is a team that's has been supported through thick and thin for over 40 years...hard to believe that outside of the Chicago Bulls, the Seattle Sonics were the most successfull team of the 1990's. No doubt, with proper ownership over the last 4 years, the Sonics success would have continued. Regardless, there is a lease with the city that demands "specific performance." The PBC knew this when it bought the team. "Specific Performance" was demanded due to the unquantifiable revenue the team's acitivities bring to the area. It's not just a function of the Key Arena, but the surrounding community and business' that benefit as result of the Sonics 41 home games. That's why the City of Seattle agreed to a complete a mostly tax payer funded overhaul of the Key Arena no less than 12 years ago (an arena David Stern called a model for the NBA).

I would also venture to guess that the City is holding firm on the lease due to the fairly extensive correspondance by PBC members before and after the sale from the Schultz group. Remember, if Bennett loses or wins the lease suit with City, he still has to face Schultz and Yarmouth. Emails, depositions...take your pick...it gives plenty of ammunition to Schultz and his attornies. Many legal experts have put that case at 50/50

OKCMallen, I respectfully disagree. That vast majority of Seattleites do want to keep the Sonics. I'm guessing you're referring to the poll results recently published in the Oklahoman. First off, let's remember that this poll was financed by the OKC ownership group. - casualobserver

I olny made it through this first part. The survey that was done by Steve Ballmer's group about 8 months ago showed that a majority of people in Washington want the Sonics to leave, even with Ballmer spending $150 million of his own money on Key Arena. Say what you want about Clay's survey but the responds were more favorable to it than Ballmer's poll.


Many legal experts have put that case at 50/50

That is pretty amazing considering the depositions just came out and no one has seen all of the evidence. Don't believe every lawyer that is trying to sell a book, magazine, or tv ratings. Heck, Commisioner Stern is a lawyer and I'll bet you $1 million you don't believe him.

In polls, 69% is a HUGE number, and is a supermajority, and if all those people are indifferent or WANT them to leave...WTH are you talking about? Only 31% said they'd be worse off, and then you say "That vast majority of Seattleites do want to keep the Sonics." Doesn't jive. And if you're going to say the survey is a big fat statistical lie, then I guess we can't even form a basis upon which to discuss. The media lies, the stats lie, blah blah blah. Easy to defend your opinion when you don't debate on any set premises.

BTW, not that you know this, but I don't need specific performance explained to me. There's also a concept in the law that sometimes a remedy will not be granted when it is bad commercially for all involved....which is arguably the case here. At any rate, most OKCians aren't worried about whether we get them in 3 months or in 2 years, as long as we get them, and it's looking good from here. In all honesty, which side would you rather be on, assuming getting the Sonics is your goal?


As to Shultz's suit, which is largely laughable, most people have said that case barely has legs. The most damning quote in it is a HALF-QUOTE. The one where CLay says best efforts to keep the team in Seattle!? The second part of that quote is something to the effect of "given that an agreeable arena deal is reached." Not to mention what a piece of work Shultz is anway, not wanting to unwind the deal and disgorge his 30 pieces of silver for which he sold "your" team...he wants the mother of all remedies: a constructive trust from which the team to be sold to any other buyer, but not himself!? Hell, that remedy alone shows he's not working in good faith here; if he was so benevolent, he'd just ask to unwind the deal and take the team back... You guys should be very worried about that suit because it's flimsy anyway, and moreover, it appears Schultz, Seattle, other powerbrokers up there were conspiring against PBC in order to sink the arena deal. Tsk tsk tsk, that's arguably in violation of the "clean hands doctrine" as you can read in this thread, meaning if that's true, you get no equitable remedies at all.

I appreciate you voicing your opinion in a calm, clear and non-insulting tone. :) Seriosuly, I just wish it would all end. Sick of it at this point.

Look, I'm not here to be combative. I do, however, take issue with the assertion that Seattle is simply indifferent towards keeping the Sonics. The poll PBC has sighted is meaningless to the overall lease suit. The poll states that 57% of the respondants believe that they "would be worse off" if the Seahawks or the Mariners left. The reader of this poll is left to infer that Seattle values the Seahawks and Mariners considerably more than the Sonics. This is very misleading. My guess is that 57% of the respondants didn't value the Mariners and Seahawks statistically the same but the question/poll was shaped in such a way as to combine the two fan bases. This same poll also indicates that if either the Seahawks or Mariners left, 43% of the respondants either wouldn't care if they left or would prefer that they did. 43%! We're talking about two enormously succesfull (at least financially/commercially) franchises within their own respectives leagues. No one, at least in their right mind, would argue that because a poll found that nearly half of Seattle respondants are indifferent to the Seahawks/Mariners that they are not financially viable nor incredibly popular amongst its fans. As for the Ballmer poll, it was not a question of "wanting" or "not wanting" the Sonics...it was a question of public dollars being used for the Sonics arena.

Let's look at this from the Seattle fan's point of view. Out of town owner buys team, issues threats to move unless $400M publicly financed arena is built in a blighted part of Puget Sound, trades best two players, cuts ties with local media, owner publicly admits they never intended to keep the team in Seattle, limits player appearances and concludes his ownership with the worst Sonics record in 41 seasons. Somewhat strange, that after all of this...the PBC took the time to poll Seattle citizens on how much they value the Sonics. My guess is that PBC conducted no such poll before the acquisition.

Couple of other things. First off, in regards to specific performance, you're right...judges have hesitated to keep two disfunctional parties together...as enforcing the lease would in fact do. But this not a case where the City can simply go out and find another tennant to play 41 home games and provide the economic impact NBA franchise can for the surrounding community/businesses. Also, after 40 years of civic/corporate partnership between the Sonics and Seattle, the disfunction was generated by the PBC intentionally lowering the quality of its product and trying to break the lease. Second point, the Schultz suit and the "clean hands doctrine." You mention the case is laughable and most believe it barely has legs. I would be interested as to why you believe its laughable specifically as to the sales agreement and side letter between PBC and Schultz. Also, I'm guessing by "other people" you mean legal minds. I would love to hear their opinion as well. As far as the "clean hands doctrine"...the only thing I have seen to support this is an article in the Oklahoman. Forgive me, but I don't see how it's possible to "sink a ship" that was never intended to sail. Especially when it has subsequently been discovered that the PBC was intending to fleece Washington tax payers for the purposes of a "sweet flip." I'm guessing you are aware that when the Washington State finance committee sent a list of questions to Bennett and Co., looking to get specifics on certain items (including how much the public could anticipate in the way PBC $$) the PBC never responded. Never.

You asked me which side I would prefer to be on....two months ago I would have conceded defeat...after perusing the depositions...I would say the City and Schultz have a very strong case. "That's why they play the game." In a perfect world, the NBA would give the Hornets back to OKC and keep the Sonics in Seattle.