Kentucky attorney sues NFL over Spygate

[Patler]

Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I believe you mean FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) not 14(b)(6). I believe Rule 14 is the Rule governing third party practice, and Rule 12 is Defenses and Objections, including (b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

[Patler]

But if liability is "not likely," why make the defendant spend the time and money answering the claim, and why waste the court's time and taxpayer dollars? Courts are way overburdened with cases as it is, and some of those other cases actually have merit. Where the plaintiffs' allegations are "not likely," it's unfair to make defendants and the courts go through with handling the case.

Anyone can file a lawsuit if they can dream up a theory of liability. But lawsuits are acts of aggression---declarations of war. They're not about fact-finding---they're about winning the dispute. Once the suits are filed, the defendants have no choice but to be dragged into an expensive and time-consuming mess.

My point is that the lawsuits above don't meet the threshold: they're based upon weak arguments and are not "likely" enough to prevail that they deserve to be heard. The legal system makes judgements like this all the time.

And the sad part is, the plaintiffs (and their lawyers) might secretly agree with me and don't even care. They have an opportunity to snap at the heels of a deep pocket who wants this media-created story to blow over already. They might get a settlement out of the deal in exchange for shutting up and going away, even before they have to prove a thing. Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I don't believe these lawsuits are about "the facts" coming to light. I think they are parasitic upon---and therefore are bad for---the NFL.

Now with regard to "the facts" coming to light, which I consider an entirely separate issue from the lawsuits: I do think the NFL would be wise to reopen its investigation if that is warranted. But they've already said they're willing to do that. Meanwhile, the "new evidence" is pretty much this Walsh guy's story and his supposed archive of tapes. They're willing to talk to him, but I don't fault them for scoffing at Walsh's insistence that he can lie with impunity or otherwise he won't talk at all. Does that not strike you as shady?

The PFT guy made a very bad case for why Walsh would want such immunity: because the NFL would sue him right away for lying, even if he wasn't lying. PFT guy ignores the fact that in such a suit, the NFL (plaintiff) would bear the burden of proving Walsh is lying---if they can't do that then they lose. Perhaps the case even gets thrown out of court right up front if they don't have enough evidence. Then the NFL is looking at a P.R. nightmare---they filed an abusive suit to silence the kid and further the so-called "cover up," etc. Even if the NFL has made some ham-handed decisions so far in this whole affair, I don't see them filing a frivolous lawsuit. This situation is way too high-profile.

But what if the NFL can show that Walsh is lying? Then, maybe Walsh is actually lying . If that's the case, then why should he have immunity? In that case, "the facts" he supposedly brings to light are not facts at all and add nothing to the understanding of this situation, and the NFL is well within its rights to sue him for fueling this firestorm.

PFT guy mentions releasing Walsh from his confidentality agreement as some sort of solution, but that has nothing to do with the above situation. The league---according to PFT guy---would sue Walsh for lying, NOT for breach of confidentiality. How would waiving the confidentaility agreement change this?

In the most likely scenario, Walsh wants to be released from the confidentiality agreement AND released from liability for lying, because then he could go public (to an eager media and a bloodthristy public) with whatever story he wants.

I am surprised that you express great concern about the potential of a frivolous action filed by fans or players against the NFL and seemingly disregard the potential of a frivolous action by the NFL against Walsh.

I have little concern about a frivolous suit against the NFL. They are a huge business fully capable of defending themselves against anyone. I do worry about the power and might of the NFL stifling legitimate claims against them just by the power they can wield in court.

[vince]

Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I believe you mean FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) not 14(b)(6). I believe Rule 14 is the Rule governing third party practice, and Rule 12 is Defenses and Objections, including (b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The plaintiffs have very clearly stated their claim. They are demanding their money back. That is as straightforward as can be.

[Patler]

Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I believe you mean FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) not 14(b)(6). I believe Rule 14 is the Rule governing third party practice, and Rule 12 is Defenses and Objections, including (b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The plaintiffs have very clearly stated their claim. They are demanding their money back. That is as straightforward as can be.

The rule Idle was referring to relates to formalities of proper pleading. It is in place to ensure that a defendant can properly determine what he is being asked to defend. It requires that the plaintiff properly plead all the elements of the cause of action.

I agree that the plaintiffs should have a legitimate claim, if properly pleaded, especially on behalf of players. I am less convinced of the likelihood of ultimate success for the claims by fans, but again, if properly pleaded, they should at least have an opportunity to prove their case.

[vince]

But if liability is "not likely," why make the defendant spend the time and money answering the claim, and why waste the court's time and taxpayer dollars? Courts are way overburdened with cases as it is, and some of those other cases actually have merit. Where the plaintiffs' allegations are "not likely," it's unfair to make defendants and the courts go through with handling the case.

Anyone can file a lawsuit if they can dream up a theory of liability. But lawsuits are acts of aggression---declarations of war. They're not about fact-finding---they're about winning the dispute. Once the suits are filed, the defendants have no choice but to be dragged into an expensive and time-consuming mess.

My point is that the lawsuits above don't meet the threshold: they're based upon weak arguments and are not "likely" enough to prevail that they deserve to be heard. The legal system makes judgements like this all the time.

Determining liability goes to who is responsible for the acts. If the facts are as they've been stated, then the Patriots would CLEARLY be liable for them. That too is clear.

The question here is whether the acts - if the tapes (or tape in this isolated case) prove out, and if Walsh can prove he was acting on behalf of the team and not on his own - that the Patriots clearly would have committed, and for which there is clearly a claim - actually violate the laws in question. There is no question (assuming the allegations to prove out) about liability or whether a claim has been stated.

The Patriots are denying the action or having any knowledge of it altogether. If the tape exists and/or can be proven to have existed, then that's a tough argument to hold IMO.

[vince]

Regarding the players' claim, they are claiming civil damages based upon losing the game (e.g. difference between winners' and losers' shares, value of Super Bowl rings). Therefore, they have to prove the Pats caused thoses losses---i.e. cheated them out of the win. If something else might have caused the damages (i.e. caused them to lose) then the Pats do not have to pay for the damages they did not cause. It's basic tort law.

This is incorrect, IMO. We're not talking about tort law. It's a breach of contract suit.

The cheated players have a right to claim the winnings because they were cheated out of a fair opportunity to win them by the defendants - who got them. They don't need to prove that the act caused the loss - just that the act caused an unfair "playing field," which they were guaranteed by contract. There's an important difference there, and damages would be the difference between the winner's share and the loser's share.

Two parties competed for a monetary prize, with a contract (certain rules and laws) governing the competition. One breached the contract and got the money. The cheated party then has a right to the prize.

[vince]

Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I believe you mean FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) not 14(b)(6). I believe Rule 14 is the Rule governing third party practice, and Rule 12 is Defenses and Objections, including (b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The plaintiffs have very clearly stated their claim. They are demanding their money back. That is as straightforward as can be.

The rule Idle was referring to relates to formalities of proper pleading. It is in place to ensure that a defendant can properly determine what he is being asked to defend. It requires that the plaintiff properly plead all the elements of the cause of action.

I agree that the plaintiffs should have a legitimate claim, if properly pleaded, especially on behalf of players. I am less convinced of the likelihood of ultimate success for the claims by fans, but again, if properly pleaded, they should at least have an opportunity to prove their case.

In both cases, there is a clear claim to be made. The cause of action comes into play to determine whether there is a reasonable interpretation as whether the law was even broken. That's different than his questioning "(b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." as he did above.

[Patler]

Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I believe you mean FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) not 14(b)(6). I believe Rule 14 is the Rule governing third party practice, and Rule 12 is Defenses and Objections, including (b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The plaintiffs have very clearly stated their claim. They are demanding their money back. That is as straightforward as can be.

The rule Idle was referring to relates to formalities of proper pleading. It is in place to ensure that a defendant can properly determine what he is being asked to defend. It requires that the plaintiff properly plead all the elements of the cause of action.

I agree that the plaintiffs should have a legitimate claim, if properly pleaded, especially on behalf of players. I am less convinced of the likelihood of ultimate success for the claims by fans, but again, if properly pleaded, they should at least have an opportunity to prove their case.

In both cases, there is a clear claim to be made. The cause of action comes into play to determine whether there is a reasonable interpretation as whether the law was even broken. That's different than his questioning "(b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." as he did above.

I think we have stated basically the same thing, with perhaps some minor disagreements on the details of a successful motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6). Not worth arguing about, as it is not really the subject of this thread.

[vince]

Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I believe you mean FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) not 14(b)(6). I believe Rule 14 is the Rule governing third party practice, and Rule 12 is Defenses and Objections, including (b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The plaintiffs have very clearly stated their claim. They are demanding their money back. That is as straightforward as can be.

The rule Idle was referring to relates to formalities of proper pleading. It is in place to ensure that a defendant can properly determine what he is being asked to defend. It requires that the plaintiff properly plead all the elements of the cause of action.

I agree that the plaintiffs should have a legitimate claim, if properly pleaded, especially on behalf of players. I am less convinced of the likelihood of ultimate success for the claims by fans, but again, if properly pleaded, they should at least have an opportunity to prove their case.

In both cases, there is a clear claim to be made. The cause of action comes into play to determine whether there is a reasonable interpretation as whether the law was even broken. That's different than his questioning "(b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." as he did above.

I think we have stated basically the same thing, with perhaps some minor disagreements on the details of a successful motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6). Not worth arguing about, as it is not really the subject of this thread.

Agreed, and I jumped the gun a tad above. I should have said that determining the proper cause of action is the preliminary determination as whether the law MAY HAVE BEEN broken based on the representations by the plaintiff's in the suit. Whether those representations hold up depends upon the facts presented in the trial, if it gets that far.

The question about the claim would come in to play in cases where a plaintiff has been wronged, but there serious question as to damages to claim. Perhaps it would be in a situation where there was a fight and the plaintiff is claiming pain and suffering damages. Even if the defendant would be found liable, the defendant has no documentable pain or suffering (ie no treatment for trauma, doctors bills, lost income, etc.) to support the suit.

[vince]

When it comes to the ticket buyers, a ticket stub would likely be required to participate in the suit, since there is no other way to prove a right to the claim...

I would presume a majority of people would have saved their ticket stub, but even if the case goes to court and the plaintiff class wins and/or a plea bargain is struck, the actual claimable damages would be far less than the award, since I doubt there are still 72,000 ticket stubs in existence and many ticket holders would fail to come forward to claim their award...

[MJZiggy]

When it comes to the ticket buyers, a ticket stub would likely be required to participate in the suit, since there is no other way to prove a right to the claim...

I would presume a majority of people would have saved their ticket stub, but even if the case goes to court and the plaintiff class wins and/or a plea bargain is struck, the actual claimable damages would be far less than the award, since I doubt there are still 72,000 ticket stubs in existence and many ticket holders would fail to come forward to claim their award...

Wouldn't credit card records and receipts suffice?

[vince]

When it comes to the ticket buyers, a ticket stub would likely be required to participate in the suit, since there is no other way to prove a right to the claim...

I would presume a majority of people would have saved their ticket stub, but even if the case goes to court and the plaintiff class wins and/or a plea bargain is struck, the actual claimable damages would be far less than the award, since I doubt there are still 72,000 ticket stubs in existence and many ticket holders would fail to come forward to claim their award...

Wouldn't credit card records and receipts suffice?

Good point. Any means of documenting the purchase of the ticket would work I'm sure...

[Patler]

When it comes to the ticket buyers, a ticket stub would likely be required to participate in the suit, since there is no other way to prove a right to the claim...

I would presume a majority of people would have saved their ticket stub, but even if the case goes to court and the plaintiff class wins and/or a plea bargain is struck, the actual claimable damages would be far less than the award, since I doubt there are still 72,000 ticket stubs in existence and many ticket holders would fail to come forward to claim their award...

Wouldn't credit card records and receipts suffice?

Likely it would depend on the specificity of the receipt, whether it is conclusive that the charge was fro the Super Bowl ticket and not something else.

[Merlin]

Every team in every sport tries to steal signals. The only difference here is that the Patriots were blatant about it and Blichek is an idiot for not ponying up right away. This whole thing is ludacris.

[the_idle_threat]

The PFT guy made a very bad case for why Walsh would want such immunity: because the NFL would sue him right away for lying, even if he wasn't lying. PFT guy ignores the fact that in such a suit, the NFL (plaintiff) would bear the burden of proving Walsh is lying---if they can't do that then they lose. Perhaps the case even gets thrown out of court right up front if they don't have enough evidence. Then the NFL is looking at a P.R. nightmare---they filed an abusive suit to silence the kid and further the so-called "cover up," etc. Even if the NFL has made some ham-handed decisions so far in this whole affair, I don't see them filing a frivolous lawsuit. This situation is way too high-profile.

But what if the NFL can show that Walsh is lying? Then, maybe Walsh is actually lying . If that's the case, then why should he have immunity? In that case, "the facts" he supposedly brings to light are not facts at all and add nothing to the understanding of this situation, and the NFL is well within its rights to sue him for fueling this firestorm.

PFT guy mentions releasing Walsh from his confidentality agreement as some sort of solution, but that has nothing to do with the above situation. The league---according to PFT guy---would sue Walsh for lying, NOT for breach of confidentiality. How would waiving the confidentaility agreement change this?

In the most likely scenario, Walsh wants to be released from the confidentiality agreement AND released from liability for lying, because then he could go public (to an eager media and a bloodthristy public) with whatever story he wants.

The point you are missing is that Walsh would be virtually defenseless in any action brought by the NFL. He would never be able to afford a lawyer to defend the action in the manner the NFL would run it. Any lawsuit from the NFL would effectively shut him up for ever.

It's not that I "missed" that point; it's that I can't cover every possible point out there. You don't think my posts on this topic are long enough? :P

But in any case, I don't buy what you're selling. Walsh is not defenseless---he already has a lawyer. And this case is high-profile enough that if that lawyer flies the coop, defense lawyers will be coming out of the woodwork to get their names on this case. Also, he could stand to win a lot of money in a counter suit if the NFL sues him in bad faith.

I am surprised that you express great concern about the potential of a frivolous action filed by fans or players against the NFL and seemingly disregard the potential of a frivolous action by the NFL against Walsh.

I am concerned about frivolous and abusive lawsuits regardless of who files them.

I addressed the concept of the NFL filing a frivolous suit in the post that you quoted. See the highlighted language above. So clearly I didn't disregard this idea. You did disregard my argument, however. I have stated that I don't believe the NFL will file a frivolous action to bully Walsh, and I made a case for why I believe that. If you disagree, then perhaps you might share why?

Now I did say that the NFL might file a legitimate suit against Walsh, meaning they would have evidence that he is in fact lying. I don't have a problem with that. It is their right, as it is the right of any individual or business to pursue a claim against someone who is wrongfully causing them harm. I'm not worried about them "shut[ting] him up forever" if they're shutting up a liar who is causing them harm.

I have little concern about a frivolous suit against the NFL. They are a huge business fully capable of defending themselves against anyone. I do worry about the power and might of the NFL stifling legitimate claims against them just by the power they can wield in court.

I can't believe you think it's OK to file illegitimate claims against the NFL, Patler. I know you have more sense than that. Now I understand that the NFL is a "big boy" and can handle it, but that doesn't make it in any way ethical. If, hypothetically, you have a fair amount of money or maybe a big umbrella insurance policy, Patler, is it OK for me to sue you for no good reason just because you can afford it?

I don't care if the plaintiffs style themselves "little guys." Clogging the courts with opportunistic trash litigation for a chance to win the lottery is every bit as wrong in my opinion as a large entity using the courts as a bully to squash a legitimate claim by a "little guy." And you did read that right---if the NFL does file an illegitimate claim against Walsh just to shut him up, I won't be in their corner. Considering that it seems I'm one of the few supporters they have left when it comes to their legal issues, that's why I don't think they would do it. It would be a P.R. nightmare for them, as if this thing hasn't blown up in their faces enough already.