After reading this, I have to wonder why the burden of proof is on WPS to discuss this with USSF. After all, if DB and his legal team were the ones to come up with the settlement offer, shouldn't it really be on them to research the validity of the settlement? If DB understood USSF and FIFA regulations, he'd have known well in advance that the settlement wouldn't likely hold up because his team would not be in an affiliated league. So, is it possible that WPS tentatively accepted the settlement knowing this? I would've thought that part of the process of settling something would be for both sides to be aware of all the appropriate terms and conditions surrounding the settlement. If this is the case, wouldn't DB be negotiating in just as much bad faith as he's purporting WPS might have been? In reading all the things that have been said about this situation, I find it odd that the settlement didn't go through it's own proper "discovery" before it was made. I'm also surprised that the judge hasn't asked this question to DB's side. I would think that a contingency such as this would need to be established first before either side could agree on it. And if it wasn't.....weren't they agreeing on nothing all along? Aaron
Florida has jurisdiction because both parties are Florida entities and/or did business in Florida. But I think you are wondering about venue, not jurisdiction. See below: I have no intention for writing a Memo of Law here, nor analyzing if I think the Judge correctly applied the Law, but in summary: There is extensive Florida case law on whether a venue clause is mandatory or permissive, and it is wholly dependent on contractual language, on a case by case basis. So is the clause mandatory?: You must bring an action in New York and only in New York. Or permissive?: You may bring the action in New York even if NY normally would not have jurisdiction (or anywhere else with proper jurisdiction). The Judge obviously found in this case that the language was closest to that in the case law which went permissive. Was she right or wrong? Ask the Fourth District Court Of Appeals.....
No, there were two prior hearings, so the 18th wouldn't be their first chance to present evidence. Why didn't WPS go ahead on the 18th? Maybe they weren't sure they would win. WPS didn't want the judge to allow any discovery. WPS can't say "ask US Soccer", because that would necessarily mean allowing for discovery (e.g. taking the deposition of someone at US Soccer), which would undercut their own legal position. What did the judge's order say? I don't see it among the other legal pleadings previously posted. The judge can't do that. All those attachments filed with the various motions and other pleadings- they aren't evidence in the case- some of those things may not be admissible because, for example, they are hearsay. In ruling on the injunction, the judge must have a hearing and only the affidavits and material formally admitted at the hearing constitute the actual evidence. I don't know enough about the details of the case to answer your other questions. I haven't read all the underlying documents, but I concur that NT's analysis looks correct. I'm not sure, however, that the legal result would be the end of the litigation. Even if we conclude that arbitration is not required prior to termination but is only a right after termination, we are still left with the question of whether Borislow could seek an injunction in combination with initiating an arbitration proceeding.
The WPS motions say they brought witnesses to prior hearings but didn't have a chance to present them because Borislow's time ran long. But my question is this: What, exactly, would they lose? A temporary injunction into a league that might not have played in 2012 under any circumstances and certainly wouldn't have played if Borislow had been reinstated. Anything else? WPS actually has asked for some discovery the other direction. Haven't seen a ruling on that. Nothing. She hasn't given her reasoning for anything. I'm not sure she even issued a formal order on this one. I could see this, but I haven't seen this specific argument raised (or objected to) by either side. WPS hasn't presented its side of things for a couple of reasons: 1. Time, in at least one instance. 2. Limiting the scope to the termination procedures only. (That's obviously the simplified version. It would take quite some time to go back through and sort the details.) At this point, I wouldn't really see the point of an injunction. Legally, Borislow is trying to compel WPS to honor "the deal," though the most tangible part of that deal (exhibitions) would be a moot point until 2013. Oy. Such a headache. I should say now -- I do appreciate people weighing in on everything. This discussion really helps me think through my questions. Now if only I could get a chance to ask them!
Forget all the legal crap, this dispute would go away in a heartbeat if certain high profile players went to DB and said they wanted out of thier contracts/commitments with MJ. Without these players, DB's exhibition team as a vehicle to sell 19.95 a month telephones becomes worthless. He has squat and he goes away. One high profile player has already gotten the hell out of S. Florida. Good for her.
That's not true, her other order (which isn't even a final order) gave far more reasoning than I've seen from judges on other injunction applications.
Which one do you mean? I may have overgeneralized. She didn't give any reasoning on the most recent ruling on discovery, nor did she give any reasoning on the venue that I've seen.
LOL. if she wasn't hogging all the endorsements since the WC, she'd be there too for the free condo and mercedes. i wouldnt be surprise if her deals are worth $2M or more over the long haul.
You have a point. The endorsement deals would make the decision to leave S. Florida much easier. It's impossible to know if the decision was strickly financial or some desire to get out of the cesspool DB has created with women's soccer. I'll give HS the benefit of the doubt and say, probably some combination of both. I think the larger point stands. There is one less high profile player in S. Florida, for whatever reason. DB would sign off on a settlement that would give his exhibition squad the right to play the WPS champions a couple of times. He's in court fighting to enforce the settlement. He obviously thinks he has a squad loaded with high profile players, either by contract or committment from those players. From the point of view of WPS, how would you continue to build a brand for professional women's soccer when five or six of the best names in women's soccer are off playing exhibitions in Costa Rica or any other place DB wants to sell telephones? Not saying this is why WPS cancelled 2012, just a factor. Cutting to the chase, DB derives his leverage from the big name players in his stable. No name players=no DB.
Most legal contracts contain a clause that if any of the procedures of the governing body (WPS) aren't followed, the protections of the other party (in this case the team owner) become NULL and VOID. How can someone file a grievance with the league if he was suspended and expelled? He is not even in good standing with the league? It is like an expelled student suing for a refund of his entire tuition. You won't ever get it.
Since it's a slow news week -- other than Olympic draw (oh, also, Messi, Ronaldo, Kaka, Ramos all missing PKs) -- I asked Beau Dure on Twitter if anything going on with the lawsuit.
I have this weird feeling that this league may soon announce its indefinite suspension and/or folding.
I was thinking the same thing, but the recent Sky Blue announcement has been re-thinking it. They must be keeping the brand name alive for something.
Here's hoping you're right, but not optomistic. There needs to be a pro league between Olympics and WWC, or it's two steps forward and two steps back.
Doesn't Judge Judy get good TV ratings? Just saying... I might have an idea about how to boost viewers for WPS games on TV. Halftime arbitration!
Probably like the Chicago Red Stars where you have a passionate owner who sees the value of keeping the brand going. When the Red Stars first started out I believe they had like around 7 owners. Now I believe the only one left is Arnim Whisler who to his credit saw the value of the brand and is keeping it going. God Bless him.
WOMEN’S PROFESSIONAL SOCCER FINALIZES SETTLEMENT IN LAWSUIT: League and Borislow Reach Agreement SAN FRANCISCO, CA (May 18, 2012) – Women’s Professional Soccer (WPS) and magicJack owner Dan Borislow announced today that all matters and claims giving rise to the lawsuit filed in Palm Beach County have been settled by a mutual confidential agreement outside of court. The parties, separated by diffe ring opinions on the interpretation of the bylaws and governance of the League, have both expressed their satisfaction that a resolution has been reached that allows both WPS and Mr. Borislow to move beyond the lawsuit that bound them in court. “In retrospect, we wish certain things had happened differently but magicJack, like all WPS teams, invested a tremendous amount of resources in and contributed to the growth and development of the women’s soccer in this country, ” said T. Fitz Johnson, Atlanta Beat Owner and WPS Chairman of the Board. "Mr. Borislow was there with magicJack when the League was in search of a sixth team, and helped ensure the League could play the 2011 season." The confidential settlement puts an end to a lengthy legal battle between the League’s Board of Governors and Borislow. “I am very proud to have been a part of a group of owners who were unified and resolute in their commitment to women’s soccer,” said Dan Borislow. “While many of my ideas happened to be different from some other peoples’ ideas, we all shared a common purpose of providing these talented players with a place to play. I can honestly say one of the finest moments of my life was watching the WPS players display their talent in the 2011 Women’s World Cup with magicJack so finely represented. I continue to be in awe of our U.S. Women’s National Team, one of the finest to represent this country, and look forward to watching them compete in the Olympics.”
I personally don't think he wanted to be controversial on purpose. He just had different ideas. His probably was with his personality and and how he expressed those ideas. Some may say arrogantly. I don't think he spent $$Millions of dollars just to so he can be controversial with somebody. Just how he is personality wise, and the other owners didn't like it. And after that it was one rich guy not wanting to play nicely with another rich guy. It doesn't matter folks, this league, the way it was structured and the amount of money that was being lost was NOT going to last anyway. Borislow or no Borislow. - I don't see how people can't understand that. IMO, Borislow was NOT the reason for the league's demise. It was in demise from the get-go. He may have contributed to the over-all decision to postpone operations, maybe earlier then planned, but no owner(s) can sustain those $$ loses for long. Now with the lawsuit settled, let's see if the league comes back? I doubt it. And even if it does, it will look nothing like what it used to be. All I'm saying is don't blame one man. The demise of this league is a collective blame. IMHO.