• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!

Motion to dismiss

P

PorkerPoke

Well-known member
The hearing is set for Tuesday 9-9 at 10 am PDT.

I hope this leads to success for the MWC. If there isn’t some bad language that favors the pee12 in the original anti-poaching contract which violates antitrust laws, the hypocritical pee12 inserted the same thing into their GOR.
 
What happens if the judge finds that the anti-poaching clause is un-enforceable...does that basically mean that the floodgates for all of these conferences get completely opened?
 
307bball said:
What happens if the judge finds that the anti-poaching clause is un-enforceable...does that basically mean that the floodgates for all of these conferences get completely opened?
Click to expand...
A whole new bag opens if that happens. Clemson and Florida State will be in an uproar with their situation with the ACC and what they were told a couple years ago. It would be the nightmare the NCAA has been hoping to avoid. Should be interesting.
 
303cowboy said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1965487627093901680
Click to expand...
Thanks 303. No surprise a ruling was not issued immediately given this has been a filing for almost one year and the pee12 has tried every maneuver possible to delay the outcome.

Wishful biased thinking of course on my part and I know statements from litigants don’t necessarily mean anything, but I have this feeling from the quick pee12 statement they might be a little nervous that either this will be dismissed or it will be a full court hearing. A full hearing will be their last chance. Could they be getting ready to pony up to a level demanded by the MWC in the mediation as a settlement or will they roll the dice and go for broke if the outcome is not a dismissal. After all, a dismissal can come with an award to the defendant to deter future litigation by a plaintiff.

🤞that the pee12 has to pay in full!
 
Watching the Monty Show replay (Tuesday September 9). They do present some strong arguments for the weak legal position the pee12 may be in. If they (Monty) read this matter correctly, the prospects for the future pee12 financially may be precarious.

My fervent hope is that the poaching and exit fees lawsuits go strongly against the pee12.

Nothing would be sweeter than to see the traitors suffer miserably in full regret of throwing away the opportunity to be the dominant G5 conference for the pipe dream they would replace the ACC and B12.

The prior legal precedence has been established with the SDSU saga a couple of years ago and the ACC debacle filed by Florida State and Clemson that didn’t do anything more than slightly modify the current contract through 2036.

If this judge (Susan Van Kuelen) somehow finds the pee12 vindicated it will set off a new flurry of unprecedented lawsuits.

My view is that worse case scenario this goes into a protracted trial. There sure seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest that everyone agreed knowingly and willingly to the contracts without duress until the pee2 decided to whore themselves to the gullible MWC traitors that they would be involved in a humongous move towards becoming a P level conference.

Nothing will shock me, but I am looking at this as being favorable to the current MWC voting members.

I can think of nothing more enjoyable than the inroads CS-ewe has made with fundraising to implode along with their cohorts.
 
Oh my oh my the wizard of pee12 knowledge gave this assessment of the potential outcomes.

Canzano claimed that while the expected outcome of the 9-9 hearing would be a delayed decision, he outlined scenarios such as:

The judge comes back and denies the motion where the pee12 will “celebrate and do a cartwheel” giving them big time leve.

The judge could award the dismissal and then of course the pee12 would automatically appeal.

The judge could grant the dismissal temporarily but order the pee12 to “close holes in their argument” and then resubmit the case.

He downplayed if the case is dismissed the MWC collects $55 million and lives to play another day by immediately interjecteing that if the case goes forward It could lead to a settlement issue to avoid the risk of losing.

He then went on his pee12 tangent and proclaimed if it goes into discovery the pee12 might find some dirt on the MWC that would enable the pee12 to add further damages. He pushed that the MWC is at risk if the case is not dismissed of being subject to additional amendments to the lawsuit where the pee12 could claim being overcharged for the 12 games in 2024 where they could say they paid $1.5 million too much per game and then sue the MWC for triple damages and get $54 million paid to them thereby putting the MWC out of business.

Of course he claims to have spoken with all kinds of legal experts. He as expected kept pushing the narrative the pee12 still has all kinds of options and leverage going forward while implying the MWC is in a precarious position.

It might be a few days before we find out what is up next. IMO - if we start hearing the sides are discussing a settlement it would be the pee12 doesn’t have all the magic powers Canzano claims. The MWC didn’t accept the lowball settlement offers the pee12 made in mediation. That might be indicative of who is in the better legal position. Discovery works both ways and the pee12 may not want to reveal their secrets.
 
The Monty Show has pretty good breakdown starting at 16:51 to 55:37

I know the Monty show is a hard watch for some so here is the breakdown:
1. Can the Pac12 survive if they lose this case
2. CW TV deal cost Pac12 a ton of money to produce for CW so it is not a "great deal"
3. Pac12 has a history of not doing the right thing:
a. Should have merged - not done
b. Not Poach teams - not done
c. Settle this case in mediation - not done
e. not add more legal fess - not done
5. Pac12 does not have leg to stand on in the lawsuit, in their opinion


 
Good summary Wyofletch. I usually watch Monty replays during happy hour 🍻!

Monty and The Big Mountain provide the facts interspersed with their own analysis but generally consistent with the information I can find from the court. Yesterday the hearing lasted from 10:06 am to 11:11 am and no text is available. Can’t say that has any meaning until the ruling which has not been announced publicly yet.

Canzano pumps out some information consistent with the proceedings but otherwise puts a lot of pro pee12 spin and an obvious disdain for the MWC on his viewpoint. The stuff he was spewing yesterday went to great lengths to make sure the MWC was painted as negatively as possible.

I try to fairly compare notes with the facts from as many sources I can and find overall that Monty is consistent with facts more than rhetoric.
 
Here's what I don't get. 1) MWC has a responsibility to protect the MWC. Individual schools do what is in their best interests.

2) The MWC identified a clear and obvious threat from facilitating the pac2 rejects. Schools (who are now the majority of the pac) in the MWC all agreed and generated the poaching fee clause. It is so obvious that it wasn't a poison pill but rather fiduciary responsibility to maintain the MWC.

3) The pac's subsequent actions prove beyond any doubt that point 2 was accurate foresight and that the poaching penalties are merely to protect the viability of the MWC.

4) A poison pill would be to accept a scheduling agreement with the pac2 rejects with no restrictions thereby guaranteeing the destruction of the MWC. Based on what happened, this is undeniably what would have occurred without the compensation for poaching the MWC.

5) The MWC identified a threat and put forth an agreement that would be accepted if that threat came to pass (as it did). There are 8 other conferences the pac2 rejects could have made a deal with. Stanford and Cal demonstrate the distance argument is null and void. If the pac2 rejects didn't like the deal, move on to one of the other conferences. If our offer was the best deal, then the market spoke. It wasn't a poison pill. It was the best deal the market would provide.

I realize I'm biased, but as I try to look at this unbiased, I can't see any logical argument the pac can make that would hold up in court.
 
I think the MW is in a better position in this case. The PAC also knows this, and all of this is desperation. They lose, they may not survive. The pac-stabbers cant allow this either.

Unfortunately, I don’t see the motion to dismiss granted, and this could be long and drawn out. I don’t see resolution soon. Hope I’m wrong. Boy do I hope I’m wrong.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
Here's what I don't get. 1) MWC has a responsibility to protect the MWC. Individual schools do what is in their best interests.

2) The MWC identified a clear and obvious threat from facilitating the pac2 rejects. Schools (who are now the majority of the pac) in the MWC all agreed and generated the poaching fee clause. It is so obvious that it wasn't a poison pill but rather fiduciary responsibility to maintain the MWC.

3) The pac's subsequent actions prove beyond any doubt that point 2 was accurate foresight and that the poaching penalties are merely to protect the viability of the MWC.

4) A poison pill would be to accept a scheduling agreement with the pac2 rejects with no restrictions thereby guaranteeing the destruction of the MWC. Based on what happened, this is undeniably what would have occurred without the compensation for poaching the MWC.

5) The MWC identified a threat and put forth an agreement that would be accepted if that threat came to pass (as it did). There are 8 other conferences the pac2 rejects could have made a deal with. Stanford and Cal demonstrate the distance argument is null and void. If the pac2 rejects didn't like the deal, move on to one of the other conferences. If our offer was the best deal, then the market spoke. It wasn't a poison pill. It was the best deal the market would provide.

I realize I'm biased, but as I try to look at this unbiased, I can't see any logical argument the pac can make that would hold up in court.
Click to expand...
I'm with you....I don't get a lot of this.

It is really difficult for me to imagine the motivations that make these actions logical. The more I hear about it, the more this looks like a divorce rather than a business negotiation. From a business standpoint, there are actions that don't really make sense financially and despite emotional entanglements, clearer heads can usually prevail. What is happening with the conference realignment mess feels closer to the divorce situation where you get the participants acting very emotionally and not in their financial best interests.

I guess if the new Pac-pack can sell a judge on their contract theories then they win big, but it seems so risky.
 
Interesting note, there was a last minute change in Judge for this hearing. Judge Wilking was replaced by Judge Susan van Keulen, who actually presided over the arguments yesterday. Van Keulen got her law degree from a former Pac school, UCLA.
 
Last edited:
Itsux2beaewe said:
Interesting not, there was a last minute change in Judge for this hearing. Judge Wilking was replaced by Judge Susan van Keulen, who actually presided over the arguments yesterday. Van Keulen got her law degree from a former Pac school, UCLA.
Click to expand...
And the word is she is a deep thought individual. Hopefully she sees through bullshit and doesn’t see imaginary issues.
 
Part of me is worried that they will pull a CSU/UNC replay official move...where everything we can see tells us one thing but the ruling appears to be based on something else.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
I realize I'm biased, but as I try to look at this unbiased, I can't see any logical argument the pac can make that would hold up in court.
Click to expand...
PAC has a great legal argument. The law does not recognize penalties for contract breach. Liquidated damage clauses have to be a reasonable forecast of actual damages to be enforceable. I have yet to see a cogent argument as to why the poaching penalties and exit fees are not payments for the identical harm. Little chance do I see the damage clauses being enforced by a court in their entireties given this set of facts - - my 2 cents based on litigating similar cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top