SaveTheCrew: Rulings From Judge Provide Boost to Plaintiffs

Screen Shot 2018-05-08 at 1.29.39 PM

Whoa. The court came back with rulings from the Status Conference held last week. And boy…I wasn’t expecting this. I assumed we’d just get some scheduling orders with regard to when the motions would be argued. We got more than that. A lot more. Judge Jeffrey M. Brown has: 1) Granted, in-part, the Plaintiffs’ motion to toll the six-month period, 2) Granted, in-part, the motion of the Defendants to stay discovery (with a massive caveat), 3) Held in abeyance the motion to compel discovery, and 4) deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss. On top of that, Judge Brown then set up a procedure by which the parties must comply with the order, and ordered the parties into conference to discuss potential resolution of the case. Like I said, whoa.  Let’s break down this significant ruling.

Motion to Toll:

First up is the motion to toll, and we’ve got a ruling which has tolled the six-month waiting period for 90 days.

Screen Shot 2018-05-08 at 1.37.01 PMThis lines up with some of the rulings which I’ll talk about later. The issue of *when* the notice period started is up for later argument, though PSV/MLS haven’t filed any sort of formal motion on that issue to outline their actual position with legal support.

Motion to Stay Discovery:

The Court has granted the defendant’s motion to stay, with a major caveat. PSV/MLS are required to turn over documents which would allow bona fide purchasers to assess the value of the team for a potential purchase. And in short order no less.

Screen Shot 2018-05-08 at 1.42.45 PM

Nothing short of a massive win for the plaintiffs here. While the rest of us would have liked for the plaintiff to get their hands on the MLS articles of formation and the Soccer United Marketing agreement, that is not really a “time-is-of-the-essence” issue in the context of a valuation/sale (well, maybe the SUM agreement is; watch this space). Now we’ll see how hard MLS fights to limit what they are required to turn over. Again, a huge win for the plaintiffs.

Motion to Compel:

In light of the ruling from the court regarding the stay of discovery, it’s not a surprise the motion to compel discovery requested by plaintiffs has been held in abeyance. I’m guessing the plaintiffs will be busy with the documents they’ll be getting from defendants related to the valuation issues for quite some time, so I doubt they are overly concerned.

Screen Shot 2018-05-08 at 1.53.22 PM

Motion to Dismiss:

We’ll have some time to discuss the motion to dismiss, as it looks like we won’t have a ruling on this case until after the tolled period has expired (unless the court rules otherwise). The defendants’ reply in the motion to dismiss is due Friday, so we’ll have a long time to pour over this motion in full.

Screen Shot 2018-05-08 at 1.57.41 PM

Case Status:

During this time period, the court will be conducing meetings with each side to see if there is the potential for a resolution. In the meantime, any bona fide purchasers should start counting their pennies to get an offer ready.Screen Shot 2018-05-08 at 2.02.57 PM

One last important thing re: the meetings that will occur over the next several weeks with regard to potential settlement and (failing that) valuation of the team. This provides pressure for both sides. PSV/MLS are probably stinging from this defeat, and have to be worried about an adverse ruling against them at trial (and potentially an injunction to prevent the move in the meantime). The Plaintiffs now are on “notice” to get their bona fide purchasers in line to make a bid after a review of relevant financials. Big question: Does a bona fide purchaser include funding for a stadium? Several sites have been offered by the city, but now they’re going to have to put out there what exactly that means. If there are no bona fide purchasers, or if the stadium solution is not right, this whole thing could be mooted very quickly.

But an incredible turn of events here. Plaintiffs really won in every way that matters at this stage. But the case is far from over. You can bet that PSV/MLS will be looking for ways to turn this pretty clear defeat around (maybe in a different venue?). But right now, the plaintiffs and #SaveTheCrew can savor this pretty clear victory.

Advertisements
  1. Thank you very much for your hard work

    Like

    Reply

    1. Thanks for the kind words!

      Like

      Reply

  2. Yeah, thanks Miki, for the updates.

    I’d think any potential buyer would want to see the MLS articles of formation to see what benefits and obligations they are signing up for. They’d want several years financial results.

    It’s not clear at all that a buyer in a forced sale would get Precourt’s share of SUM so they’d want clarification on that too.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Fair points. I’ll be interested to see if the parties can even come close to agreeing on what should be disclosed.

      Like

      Reply

  3. Thank you for your analysis!

    Like

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome! Happy to do it.

      Like

      Reply

  4. […] Miki Turner of SoccerEsq.com has been a useful useful resource to offer perception into the entire authorized entanglements that […]

    Like

    Reply

  5. Andy Zartman May 9, 2018 at 9:33 am

    I already sent you a donation, but with all this work I am thinking I may have to send another. Your efforts here are really appreciated.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Ha, thanks so much!

      Like

      Reply

  6. […] all of the action that is happening in this case, there is one more procedural loose end to clear up for the time being. The defendants have asked […]

    Like

    Reply

  7. […] stayed a decision on the motion to dismiss the case (among other things). You can take a look at my analysis of that order here. Concurrently, the plaintiffs have filed a motion which states they do not opposed an expedited […]

    Like

    Reply

  8. […] lower-court Order which (among other things) requires PSV/MLS to provide certain financial information to the Court […]

    Like

    Reply

  9. […] on the same case, arguing different things. When PSV/MLS gave notice of their intent to appeal the lower court Order, the City of Columbus and State of Ohio almost immediately filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on […]

    Like

    Reply

  10. […] we’ve been dealing with the PSV/MLS appeal of the Order from Judge Brown, as well as the goings on in Austin, there haven’t been many filings in the […]

    Like

    Reply

  11. […] was the day Judge Brown issued his original order, which addressed the tolling of the 180 notice period, discovery and the timing for the motion to dismiss, among […]

    Like

    Reply

  12. […] the appeal of the May 8th Order in the Modell lawsuit behind us, things are moving forward towards trial. While the parties […]

    Like

    Reply

  13. […] have basically been sent packing at every turn during the lawsuit, which may explain their apparent change in tone. From […]

    Like

    Reply

  14. […] this case, the Judge on May 8 granted a 90-day toll of the six-month requirement as part of his global procedural order. I’ll post the relevant portion of that order for a […]

    Like

    Reply

  15. […] plaintiffs have won at just about every stage in this lawsuit thus far, and quite handily at that in most […]

    Like

    Reply

  16. […] a resolution, things could be expedited. But no predictions on that from me (I learned my lesson after the ruling in May). Hopefully Judge Brown will give us at least a timeframe on when he’ll make his decision. […]

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Advertisements
Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: