Jets STH sues Patriots, Belichick for $184M

[kolbitr]

It's such a bizarre lawsuit that it's hard to figure what the liability would be. They're claiming that this is a consumer fraud issue, which means they're entitled to the ticket price tripled (the x3 comes from NJ statutes). The problem is, as far as I understand it there needs to be a business/consumer relationship in order for there to be consumer fraud, and there isn't any such relationship between him and the Patriots - they bought their tickets from the Jets. They should sue the Jets and if they prevail (still not a chance) the Jets would sue New England to try to and recover their losses.

The other issue here is of supplemental jurisdiction/pendent jurisdiction. A federal court can only hear claims under state law if they also relate to a valid claims under federal law in front of the court. They're suing under RICO, a federal law, and NJ consumer protection laws. Winning under RICO requires them to prove racketeering, and if the RICO claim is tossed then the consumer fraud claim also has to be dropped - or at least removed to state court. Somehow I don't think Kraft and Belichick are losing sleep over this one...

Your expertise and insight on this and other matters legal is much-appreciated! Thanks, and kudos.

 

[fgssand]

It's such a bizarre lawsuit that it's hard to figure what the liability would be. They're claiming that this is a consumer fraud issue, which means they're entitled to the ticket price tripled (the x3 comes from NJ statutes). The problem is, as far as I understand it there needs to be a business/consumer relationship in order for there to be consumer fraud, and there isn't any such relationship between him and the Patriots - they bought their tickets from the Jets. They should sue the Jets and if they prevail (still not a chance) the Jets would sue New England to try to and recover their losses.

The other issue here is of supplemental jurisdiction/pendent jurisdiction. A federal court can only hear claims under state law if they also relate to a valid claims under federal law in front of the court. They're suing under RICO, a federal law, and NJ consumer protection laws. Winning under RICO requires them to prove racketeering, and if the RICO claim is tossed then the consumer fraud claim also has to be dropped - or at least removed to state court. Somehow I don't think Kraft and Belichick are losing sleep over this one...

I do not question your findings as they make perfect sense...to me. Now, tell me how you came to your summary and what basis for fact you have to reach your conclusions??

I guess I am asking, with all due respect and high hopes that you are dead nuts on target.....are you a lawyer or judge??

 

[biffman]

It's such a bizarre lawsuit that it's hard to figure what the liability would be. They're claiming that this is a consumer fraud issue, which means they're entitled to the ticket price tripled (the x3 comes from NJ statutes). The problem is, as far as I understand it there needs to be a business/consumer relationship in order for there to be consumer fraud, and there isn't any such relationship between him and the Patriots - they bought their tickets from the Jets. They should sue the Jets and if they prevail (still not a chance) the Jets would sue New England to try to and recover their losses.

I agree - where is the standing? There's certainly no privity.

 

[BPF]

Thanks Goodell, you Doofus. This is why the NFL should have made a lawyer commissioner. His careless actions have spawned a generation of conspiracy theorists. All he had to do was hand out a small fine and send out a memo, and move on. What a moron.

My thought exactly....Nice job 'Law & Disorder' commissioner. Bring back Tags.

 

[Pujo]

I do not question your findings as they make perfect sense...to me. Now, tell me how you came to your summary and what basis for fact you have to reach your conclusions??

I guess I am asking, with all due respect and high hopes that you are dead nuts on target.....are you a lawyer or judge??

Nope, I'm not a lawyer, paralegal, and certainly not a judge. I've studied some law, but mostly I just looked up the relevant legal concepts on Findlaw.com for my above post. I certainly would not take my own legal advice as it relates to an actual case, though. In other words, I wouldn't test my legal opinions in front of a judge.

 

[SpiritOf76]

It's a sad state for the Jets franchise when their fans are so Pats-focused.

They want so bad to be in New England's head. They might be in some fans heads, but the Pats performance on the field isn't affected negatively, not even in the slightest. It's a beautiful thing.

The Jets fans' *****ing and moaning gives them something to focus on besides the quality of their product on the field, which we can see is mediocre this year.

It must really sting the Jets to go from almost-rans last year, to a confirmed C-grade product this year.

Here's to years more of them focusing on the Pats as a diversion from the Jets being a true 2nd or 3rd class NFL franchise on the field.

Accept mediocrity, Jets! It's your future in this division. It's your present.

 

[Keegs]

If i was the lawyer for the pats i would file a "motion 7 article 6.73 to Limine". Hopefully this would disrupt litigation and help mitigate the preponderance of the evidence that the jets are so desperately seeking.

Then i would file an Article 3.09 motion to remove the other lawyer and try to re-acquaint my positive witness with the moot case.

Thus, the next (and most obvious) step would be to reconfigure the motion to dismiss based on the positive corroboration of the class action lawsuit witnesses and union delegates from the tri-state area.

then AND ONLY THEN, can the motion to withhold the cantankerous evidence be Proposed under the New Jersey and New England Statute 3.57

I hope i didn't confuse some of you. I know a lot about the law and maybe i should have worded this differently for you "amateurs"

 

[Gunnails]

What do you call two lawyers buried up to there neck in sand?


Answer: Not enough sand.


What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 20?


Answer: Your honor.:trolls:

 

[biffman]

If i was the lawyer for the pats i would file a "motion 7 article 6.73 to Limine". Hopefully this would disrupt litigation and help mitigate the preponderance of the evidence that the jets are so desperately seeking.

Then i would file an Article 3.09 motion to remove the other lawyer and try to re-acquaint my positive witness with the moot case.

Thus, the next (and most obvious) step would be to reconfigure the motion to dismiss based on the positive corroboration of the class action lawsuit witnesses and union delegates from the tri-state area.

then AND ONLY THEN, can the motion to withhold the cantankerous evidence be Proposed under the New Jersey and New England Statute 3.57

I hope i didn't confuse some of you. I know a lot about the law and maybe i should have worded this differently for you "amateurs"

LOL. Good stuff.

 

[OtisCampbell]

I don't think we need a lot of in-depth legal analysis of this turd. This is like the judge in DC would sued the dry cleaner for $50M for losing a pair of pants. I don't know the facts of the final outcome, but I think his ass got in hot water. One can only hope these two butt nuggets get the same result

 

[biffman]

I don't think we need a lot of in-depth legal analysis of this turd. This is like the judge in DC would sued the dry cleaner for $50M for losing a pair of pants. I don't know the facts of the final outcome, but I think his ass got in hot water. One can only hope these two butt nuggets get the same result

I don't think the final outcome is really in question. However, if the Patriots can get this knocked out immediately (via a Motion to Dismiss), they can save themselves a lot of headaches with discovery and press. That is obviously much more advantageous than going through discovery and winning at the Summary Judgment stage. That's why I mentioned the 12(b)(6) motion, which you would file immediately and hopefully get rid of the case without much of a headache.

 

[Sundayjack]

If i was the lawyer for the pats i would file a "motion 7 article 6.73 to Limine". Hopefully this would disrupt litigation and help mitigate the preponderance of the evidence that the jets are so desperately seeking.

Then i would file an Article 3.09 motion to remove the other lawyer and try to re-acquaint my positive witness with the moot case.

Thus, the next (and most obvious) step would be to reconfigure the motion to dismiss based on the positive corroboration of the class action lawsuit witnesses and union delegates from the tri-state area.

then AND ONLY THEN, can the motion to withhold the cantankerous evidence be Proposed under the New Jersey and New England Statute 3.57

I hope i didn't confuse some of you. I know a lot about the law and maybe i should have worded this differently for you "amateurs"

Hehe. . . .

 

[Bella*chick]

If i was the lawyer for the pats i would file a "motion 7 article 6.73 to Limine". Hopefully this would disrupt litigation and help mitigate the preponderance of the evidence that the jets are so desperately seeking.

Then i would file an Article 3.09 motion to remove the other lawyer and try to re-acquaint my positive witness with the moot case.

Thus, the next (and most obvious) step would be to reconfigure the motion to dismiss based on the positive corroboration of the class action lawsuit witnesses and union delegates from the tri-state area.

then AND ONLY THEN, can the motion to withhold the cantankerous evidence be Proposed under the New Jersey and New England Statute 3.57

I hope i didn't confuse some of you. I know a lot about the law and maybe i should have worded this differently for you "amateurs"

This may be my favorite post ever.

 

[Sundayjack]

I don't think the final outcome is really in question. However, if the Patriots can get this knocked out immediately (via a Motion to Dismiss), they can save themselves a lot of headaches with discovery and press. That is obviously much more advantageous than going through discovery and winning at the Summary Judgment stage. That's why I mentioned the 12(b)(6) motion, which you would file immediately and hopefully get rid of the case without much of a headache.

I had a funny thought about this earlier today. The NFL is a partnership. Appears to me that, in addition to the motion to dismiss, I would consider filing a motion to join 31 other parties. Or, maybe a motion to dismiss for failure to join 31 indispensable parties. HAH! Drama! I need more drama!!!

 

[Pujo]

If i was the lawyer for the pats i would file a "motion 7 article 6.73 to Limine". Hopefully this would disrupt litigation and help mitigate the preponderance of the evidence that the jets are so desperately seeking.

Then i would file an Article 3.09 motion to remove the other lawyer and try to re-acquaint my positive witness with the moot case.

Thus, the next (and most obvious) step would be to reconfigure the motion to dismiss based on the positive corroboration of the class action lawsuit witnesses and union delegates from the tri-state area.

then AND ONLY THEN, can the motion to withhold the cantankerous evidence be Proposed under the New Jersey and New England Statute 3.57

I hope i didn't confuse some of you. I know a lot about the law and maybe i should have worded this differently for you "amateurs"

You forgot to re-route the warp drive.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

You forgot to re-route the warp drive.

And carry the 7.

 

[grapedog]

You forgot to re-route the warp drive.

Uh...hello...you need to reverse the polarity...duh!

 

[abejarano12]

This stupid this guy needs to gethis money back for watching the Jets get their butts kicked year in and year out.

 

[NovaScotiaPatsFan]

It's really funny watching these guys.

http://forums.theganggreen.com/showthread.php?t=25411

 

[livinginthe past]

If i was the lawyer for the pats i would file a "motion 7 article 6.73 to Limine". Hopefully this would disrupt litigation and help mitigate the preponderance of the evidence that the jets are so desperately seeking.

Then i would file an Article 3.09 motion to remove the other lawyer and try to re-acquaint my positive witness with the moot case.

Thus, the next (and most obvious) step would be to reconfigure the motion to dismiss based on the positive corroboration of the class action lawsuit witnesses and union delegates from the tri-state area.

then AND ONLY THEN, can the motion to withhold the cantankerous evidence be Proposed under the New Jersey and New England Statute 3.57

I hope i didn't confuse some of you. I know a lot about the law and maybe i should have worded this differently for you "amateurs"

Hats off to Keegs.

That was superb.

And totally unexpected.