Reply With Quote
it's been ty but entertaining
i'm a Cowboys fan...i should get refunded for the last 16 years
it's been ty but entertaining
Czar's confusion and the forced contrarianism by mystix ruined this thread, thb.
We should get together and file a class action suit against Stern for interferring with the Spurs chance to win a championship and reducing our enjoyment as Spurs fans.
Nothing forced. Playing devil's advocate.
Does anyone remember college 101 debates?
C'mon. There are two sides. Pick one and make a reasonable argument and see what happens. In here, you say something and ten posters jump in and call you stupid, got, blah-blah....
Just try to have a decent debate. Is that so difficult?
These guys get paid way too much to be tired.
Pop is wrong.Period.
Being tired and getting well paid are not mutually exclusive
Surely, you are not advocating playing your guys until they collapse. If so, we should eliminate time-outs and just play 5 players until one of them is removed on a stretcher. Couldn't you just rent a Russell Crowe or Kirk Douglas film or something??
From a legal standpoint, I struggle to see how this notion has a leg to stand upon. By purchasing the ticket in the secondary market, the lead plaintiff doesn't have a direct contractual or quasi-contractual relationship with the Spurs, the Heat, or the NBA. He's a third party beneficiary (perhaps) of the original ticket purchaser and could prevail on his claim only if the deceptive trade practices law of Florida or Texas (or perhaps New York, if the NBA is ever formally made a party to this action) allows someone with an attenuated relationship to the original transaction to sue on that theory. I'm not inclined to go looking for the specific answer to that question, but it's not a sure thing that any of those jurisdictions would recognize the sort of recovery this guy seeks.
Beyond that, it seems highly likely to me that the Heat (not the Spurs) set the higher price for the tickets to the Spurs/Heat game in Miami; the Spurs can't be said (I don't think) to have induced any sort of reliance that would support a claim for deceptive trade practices. If his theory is valid, if a prestigious team trades a star player at the deadline before its only visit to a particular city, the purchasers of tickets with inflated prices (based presumably upon the involvement of that star player) to that game would presumably have a basis to pursue and action against the visiting team for having deprived the purchaser of the value of the tickets. (for what it's worth, he's trying to narrowly define the cir stances in which his theory would apply by claiming that there was, effectively, no notice to ticket holders that the Spurs' stars would not appear for that game; my guess is that he would argue that had he known some reasonable time in advance, he would have been able to sell the tickets or something along those lines).
And, of course, as others have noted, there is the issue of the disclaimers that accompany NBA tickets and do away with any representation that particular players will perform in particular games.
There are other facets to the legal dispute, but those are pretty fundamental reasons why I think this claim is ultimately a loser from a purely legal standpoint.
I'd note, however, that from a practical standpoint, the effort to assemble a class is (potentially) more problematic. Ultimately, his goal -- I suspect -- is to identify a class of individuals who bought tickets to that game; suggest to the Spurs and any other defendant parties that while they might prevail in the litigation, it will be a bloody battle to do so; convince the defendants to settle for some relatively nominal compensation; and then convince the court to award him (as class counsel) substantial attorneys fees for his work. There are 4 basic requirements in most jurisdictions for certifying a class and I'd think that he can surmount that hurdle pretty easily because the class members will have common claims, he or someone else who purchased tickets at an inflated price can adequately represent those claims (assuming there were actually sales from the Heat to the public at higher rates), those claims will likely be typical of those of the other class members, and there would be more than 19,000 potential claimants who could comprise the class (or at least there would be however many claimants paid more than the usual price directly to the Heat for those tickets). He could have just enough there to make this a nuisance that requires a settlement.
Being tired and getting well paid are not mutually exclusive
Surely, you are not advocating playing your guys until they collapse. If so, we should eliminate time-outs and just play 5 players until one of them is removed on a stretcher. Couldn't you just rent a Russell Crowe or Kirk Douglas film or something??
Well, it doesn't have to be the extreme either does it?
What about just play them if they are not injured?
Simple.
They were not injured and Pop just tried to be sneaky and it bit him in the ass. Pop is also pussifying the team and has been for years. No wonder then- that all the "superstars" are always getting injured.
Pop used to be about "no excuses" and "every team plays 82 games" and the results were 4 les.
Suddenly Pop starts getting careful and protective and now he is too scared to just coach normally - he thinks he also has to babysit,coddle and protect too.
Fail.
^Pop started "coddling" players back in 2005. Remember the Robert Sarver "chicken" game? Those two championships after that game were kinda cool, IMO.
Anyways, this thread isn't about whether Pop is right or wrong to manage minutes. It's about the laughable lawsuit. Re-bump an older threat to whine about how Pop coaches, thanks.
The lawsuit is legit. Not talking big money or something exaggerated - but it is a legit suit in principle. Just say you want yes-men- in here then if you can't stand someone with a different view.
...and/or go look at the Miami/Spurs game thread and you will see I had the same view when it went down.
I just asked if this thread could remain on topic. And your first two sentences complied with that request. Thanks; no need to get emotional.
Sounds like a good threat to bump if you want to travel down the tangent regarding whether Pop's coaching move is a positive managerial tactic.
Not getting emotional at all. Just trying to have a debate on the lawsuit and its merits or lack therof. Thanks.
Did you "quit" law school because you just failed out?
Sounds like a plan. Thanks.
So, do you think he'll win?
I tend to agree that this will probably be summarily thrown out. Clearly there's no contractual or quasi-contractual relationship between ticket purchasers and the Spurs. But it seems like the basis for the suit is Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. And unfortunately, from my 5 minute quick research, it looks like there's no need to prove reasonable reliance in connection with a class action claim brought under the Act:
We begin with the damages issue. If the plaintiffs' claims for damages under the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act were like claims for fraud, as the trial court reasoned, we would agree that they could not be asserted on behalf of a class. Multiple claims of intrinsic fraud cannot meet the test of commonality under rule 1.220(a)(2), because the issue of reliance is unique to each person who is alleged to have been defrauded. See Osceola Groves, Inc. v. Wiley, 78 So.2d 700 (Fla.1955); Lance v. Wade, 457 So.2d 1008 (Fla.1984). However, we conclude that there is a critical difference between a deceptive trade practice claim and a claim of fraud. A party asserting a deceptive trade practice claim need not show actual reliance on the representation or omission at issue. Hence, the impediment to class litigation that exists for multiple intrinsic fraud claims does not exist in the present case.
974*974 The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act provides that an aggrieved party may initiate a civil action against a party who has engaged in "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce," but it does not define the elements of such an action. See § 501.204(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). Instead, the statute provides that the Florida courts must give "due consideration and great weight" to Federal Trade Commission and federal court interpretations of section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C § 45(a)(1). See § 501.204(2), Fla. Stat. (1999). According to the federal decisions, a deceptive practice is one that is "likely to mislead" consumers. See In re International Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949 (1984); In the Matter of Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110 (1984); Southwest Sunsites, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 785 F.2d 1431 (9th Cir.1986). This standard does not require subjective evidence of reliance, as would be the case with a common law action for fraud.
The objective test adopted by the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts applies, as well, in a suit in state court under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. See Millennium Communications & Fulfillment, Inc. v. Office of the Attorney General, 761 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).[1] The plaintiff need not prove the elements of fraud to sustain an action under the statute. See W.S. Bad Corp. v. Myers, 696 So.2d 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Urling v. Helms Exterminators, Inc., 468 So.2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). That is so because the question is not whether the plaintiff actually relied on the alleged deceptive trade practice, but whether the practice was likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably in the same cir stances.
The standard of proving that an act is deceptive and therefore a violation of the statute is the same in a class action as it is in an action initiated by an individual consumer. As the court explained in Latman v. Costa Cruise Lines, N.V., 758 So.2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), members of a class proceeding under the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act need not prove individual reliance on the alleged representation. The Latman decision has been adopted in the State of Washington, see Pickett v. Holland America Line Westours, Inc., 101 Wash.App. 901, 6 P.3d 63 (2000), and other states have also held that individual proof of reliance is not required in class actions under comparable consumer statutes. See Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 311 Ill.App.3d 886, 244 Ill.Dec. 455, 726 N.E.2d 51 (2000); Dix v. American Bankers Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 429 Mich. 410, 415 N.W.2d 206 (1987); Weinberg v. Sun Co., Inc., 740 A.2d 1152 (Pa.Super.Ct.1999).
We recognize that the "likely to mislead" standard was developed for use with the Federal Trade Commission Act, which has no provision for a suit by a private citizen. Perhaps the need for an objective standard such as this is greater if the action is one that must be pursued by a governmental agency on behalf of the consuming public. A private citizen would have a greater ability to demonstrate the harmful effect of the alleged deceptive trade practice in a given case. Nevertheless, the courts in Florida and other states have adopted the objective standard for private actions under similar consumer protection statutes. In the absence of a more specific provision, therefore, we must assume that the instruction in section 501.204(2) to rely on federal interpretations applies to both public and private actions under Chapter 501.
Based on these principles, we conclude that the claims for damages in this case can be asserted on behalf of a class 975*975 under rule 1.220(b)(3). All of the claims share one essential common feature; that is, the alleged defective practice reduced the value of the telephones. Because proof of reliance is unnecessary, the plaintiffs' inability to show reliance in every case cannot be used to justify a finding that individual issues will predominate over the class claims. Issues pertaining to the proof of the alleged deceptive practice and issues relating to causation and damages will be common to all members of the class.
Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So. 2d 971 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 1st Dist. 2000
I didn't read this with much scrutiny, so I could be very very wrong. But it looks like FWD's fears about this being a nuissance substantial enough to spur a settlement might be well founded. I'd be curious as to what the Spur's insurance coverage is and whether it'd cover something like this. I'd also imagine there'd be some kind of indemnity agreement between the league and the Spurs.
It might be better if he quit if he gets/got disgusted with the practical application of the law. This is a good point with a lawsuit like this one by the Miami Heat fan/attorney...the fact that it seems frivolous or lacking in merit but it might turn out to be legit.
Sometimes some cases/suits appear to be ridiculous but when examined/debated/argued/judged - they actually turn out to be legit and/or warranted.
If you practice law you will have to let go of the outcomes and you will have to defend things you might not agree with...unless you don't want to get paid.
Too much legal briefing. At its core, any claim for fraud requires that the defendant make an actual representation that was not true. So if Pop or the Spurs organization told fans in Miami to come buy a ticket so they could see Ginoboli, Duncan, Parker, or Green play against the Heat on a particular date, then, in theory, this guy might have a claim against the Spurs. But the Spurs have not made that representation. Maybe the Heat did or the NBA did, but not the Spurs. So I'd say that this lawsuit is on weak ground to begin.
Even if you did find some tenuous connection between the Spurs and the Heat and who would play, I would not doubt for a minute that any agreement attached to purchasing tickets includes a waiver of representations about things like who will play. Honestly, that is pretty standard in contracts. Even if the ticket was purchased on a secondary market, the contractual agreement between the original parties would still be binding. A third party doesn't get a better deal than the original purchaser of the tickets. So I'd bet that this is an easy win for the NBA, the Heat, or the Spurs.
So why would this attorney file such a suit? And even more, why would he want a class action suit? Because he is a personal injury attorney and this is great exposure to his practice. He gets his name in the national news. Locally, he's probably a hero on sports radio. All it costs him is a hundred dollars to file the lawsuit. He'll be interviewed locally and nationally, on TV and radio. That's a bunch of free exposure. Even if his case is poured out, most people will just remember his name and that he filed suit. It's a great way to get business and more interesting and cheaper than advertising on TV, in the phone book, on the internet, or on the side of a bus.
This lawsuit will last about as long as the next Bobcat win streak.
Well Yes & No.
I mean he might prove that it is a legit gripe and he might get an exemplary ruling in his favor (like a ticket refund or a $1 judgement) so this would be a yes.
And...
He won't get big bucks and win a bunch of money for a bunch of disgruntled fans IMO - which would be the NO part.
I do think a couple of things make this a little interesting;
#1) Stern's fine against the Spurs can only help this guys case...
#2) The Spurs actually paying the fine - will also help his case.
I think that Sterns comments and subsequent fine may make it easy to prove there was a wrong doing from part of the Spurs.
So The Texas Hammer should quit advertising because it does not work. Are you totally unaware of greed and how many idiots sign up with these personal injury s ? "The hammer got me 500 bucks after I got my eyelid caught under the leg of a chair. I also got someone to fight for me and respect my rights as a contortionist."
These advertisements and name recognition quite clearly work or said attorney (read parasite) would not pay for this crap. You will see one of these ads during almost every Spurs game.
Just because Shaqmeal would not use one of these shysters does not preclude others from doing so.
that's what I been saying. This suit and the wave of next ones are all Stern's children.
Some analyst called the fine a "dangerous" precedent. This is why.
The interesting thing is why sue the Spurs and not the League? I am sure the lawyer considered both options. I mean, the tickets are actually printed by the league right? and the ticket $ goes to the league first?
another note, as Spurs were fined $1,000,000. SHouldn't that money go towards paying the suit? IMO the league took ownership of this when they fined the Spurs, at the same time they encouraged the suits. Good going fat mother er Stern
If this goes anywhere the sole culprit is Stern. He went away from ppl pay to see teams to ppl pay to see Stars. His head needs to roll.
And if this thing gets through Florida it will get immediately tossed out on the Federal level. Then Stern will look like an even bigger fool. This frivolity goes absolutely nowhere.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
