Started By
Message
re: This stupid Ole Miss / Rebel rags lawsuit
Posted on 6/16/17 at 5:43 am to TOFTR
Posted on 6/16/17 at 5:43 am to TOFTR
I certainly can understand RR's frustration in being caught up in this situation, especially if RR did nothing wrong. I have expressed no opinion on that point since I don't have any basis to have an opinion about what may or may not have transpired. Prior to this suit, I had no knowledge of RR's existence. I am interested in the case, however, and in understanding what the underlying purposes are, since the suit itself is not likely to bring any real relief, at least directly to RR.
Parts of the case are legally not terribly solid - the disparagement claim, for example. Some claims, or elements of claims, will likely be difficult to prove, for example, the conspiracy, even the falsity of the defendants' statements. Proof of loss may be difficult, and the likelihood of actual recovery of a significant judgment award is not all that good.
So that leads to speculation about the underlying goals of bringing this suit. It isn't the kind of case that most lawyers would bring if the goal was to recover money from the defendants. Many times even when there is a legal wrong, the return on the case, even if successful, doesn't warrant the cost required to prosecute the case. In ordinary circumstances, this could be one of those cases. But it isn't an ordinary situation, and the suit could well be aimed at entities that are not parties to the suit.
Parts of the case are legally not terribly solid - the disparagement claim, for example. Some claims, or elements of claims, will likely be difficult to prove, for example, the conspiracy, even the falsity of the defendants' statements. Proof of loss may be difficult, and the likelihood of actual recovery of a significant judgment award is not all that good.
So that leads to speculation about the underlying goals of bringing this suit. It isn't the kind of case that most lawyers would bring if the goal was to recover money from the defendants. Many times even when there is a legal wrong, the return on the case, even if successful, doesn't warrant the cost required to prosecute the case. In ordinary circumstances, this could be one of those cases. But it isn't an ordinary situation, and the suit could well be aimed at entities that are not parties to the suit.
This post was edited on 6/16/17 at 5:47 am
1
Posted on 6/16/17 at 9:23 am to tigerinridgeland
quote:
So that leads to speculation about the underlying goals of bringing this suit
I think it is (at least) two fold, and neither are to win against the defendants.
1) it's a hail mary attempt to show Ole Miss (and NCAA) they vehemently dispute the charges, are fighting them forcefully, and all with the hope of NOT being disassociated.
2) they hope to get defendants to deposition in effort to recant some statement or at least contradict a statement so that, even if they are disassociated, they may be vindicated in eyes of the OM public and, thus, may not suffer the future revenue impact they assume would follow a disassociation.
there are a couple of other options, but they sound about as reasoned as the commercial disparagement and civil conspiracy claims.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 3:11 pm to bamasgot13
quote:
I think it is (at least) two fold, and neither are to win against the defendants.
I think you are likely correct. They may be hoping to develop favorable evidence that could then be used by Ole Miss to fight the charges surrounding RR resulting in a conclusion that does not result in disassociation.
I suspect that most folks familiar with RR, as I am not, have already decided what they think about who is lying. Unless the defendants recant, the outcome of the case likely won't change many minds since it is basically he said/he said.
I suppose the plaintiff could be hoping for a home run judgment that could be enforced by garnishing the NFL salaries and bonuses of the athlete-defendants, assuming they do get NFL contracts. Presumably, the judgment would not be dischargeable in bankruptcy, since the injury, if proved, would have been willfully and maliciously caused.
This post was edited on 6/16/17 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 6/16/17 at 3:30 pm to tigerinridgeland
Why would anyone at Ole Miss think this litigation would be wrapped up before the NCAA fiasco? Ole Miss itself doesn't have too much to gain from this suit and likely isn't too pleased it was brought forth. However, disassociation would be a death blow for RR, both because of how much of their inventory could no longer be manufactured/sold (as exclusive vendors of proprietary Ole Miss-related clothing and memorabilia) and because fans like me would not be looking to support a store that so sloppily helped topple Ole Miss' house of cards, so it makes sense that they would take whatever steps necessary to protect their livelihood. Cannon Motors in Oxford, the loaner car dealership, has definitely seen a dip in business since the Tunsil fiasco, and they didn't even have to worry about how disassociation would affect their product base
Posted on 6/16/17 at 3:32 pm to TOFTR
quote:
Cannon Motors in Oxford, the loaner car dealership, has definitely seen a dip in business
Shout out when Hunters Hollow starts a decline and drops some prices
I'll bring a box truck to Oxford
This post was edited on 6/16/17 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 6/16/17 at 8:40 pm to TOFTR
I appreciate your comments and insights into the background of the situation.
I really don't think anyone would expect the case to be finished before fhe NCAA committee makes its decision, but it may be that the plaintiffs hope to conduct discovery in a fairly quick manner. If the results of discovery are favorable, that would then be available to Ole Miss for use in its defense in an effort to influence the outcome regarding this aspect of the charges and head off disassociation, which as you have pointed out carries the potential of real harm to RR. But you may well be right that Ole Miss may not be thrilled with the suit. I would wonder if perhaps Ole Miss's lawyers were informally asked or at least informed before it was filed.
If the NCAA decision comes down badly for Ole Miss, and disassociation is required, that would likely happen long before the civil case is decided, and the damage will have been done. Even if RR ultimately wins the suit, if there is no opportunity to actually recover his losses, it is pretty much a Pyrrhic victory. I suppose he could try to sue the NCAA, but the grounds for that suit are possibly even less compelling than the current suit. Perhaps he could attempt to pressure the NCAA to rescind the decision to require disassociation at that point.
All in all it is just a strange situation, and if RR Is innocent, but the NCAA remains unconvinced, RR may still take a big hit with a strong possibility of no real remedy. If he can't prove his case, well, it looks like he made his bed.
I really don't think anyone would expect the case to be finished before fhe NCAA committee makes its decision, but it may be that the plaintiffs hope to conduct discovery in a fairly quick manner. If the results of discovery are favorable, that would then be available to Ole Miss for use in its defense in an effort to influence the outcome regarding this aspect of the charges and head off disassociation, which as you have pointed out carries the potential of real harm to RR. But you may well be right that Ole Miss may not be thrilled with the suit. I would wonder if perhaps Ole Miss's lawyers were informally asked or at least informed before it was filed.
If the NCAA decision comes down badly for Ole Miss, and disassociation is required, that would likely happen long before the civil case is decided, and the damage will have been done. Even if RR ultimately wins the suit, if there is no opportunity to actually recover his losses, it is pretty much a Pyrrhic victory. I suppose he could try to sue the NCAA, but the grounds for that suit are possibly even less compelling than the current suit. Perhaps he could attempt to pressure the NCAA to rescind the decision to require disassociation at that point.
All in all it is just a strange situation, and if RR Is innocent, but the NCAA remains unconvinced, RR may still take a big hit with a strong possibility of no real remedy. If he can't prove his case, well, it looks like he made his bed.
This post was edited on 6/16/17 at 8:41 pm
Posted on 6/16/17 at 10:47 pm to tigerinridgeland
Well yeah, anyone who brings suit and can't prove their case faces the various consequences of an unsuccessful suit. Ultimately, RR took a precautionary step to protect its assets. I'd be surprised if discovery finishes up at a time where Ole Miss could theoretically use it, plus it's a lot harder to control a narrative once things get through the steps of the legal process, and there are going to be a lot of facts that boil down to he said/she said. There are a lot of ways it can/will play out, but RR went with a proactive measure to protect its current business structure, and I can't fault them for that
This post was edited on 6/16/17 at 10:48 pm
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News