Elite fan club sues Jazz for $19 million

[Hopper]

Valid suit, IMO

Well, it depends on the details of the contract I spoze, Scorp, which haven't really been made clear. But on the face of it, I can't see where the main claim is valid. They may well have been ripped off on meals, and the discontinuation of the 20% discount was probably wrong, but I can't see where they were expressly given a monolopy on scalpin tickets, or even why they think such a "deal" would be enforceable if it existed.

Why do you think it's valid?

 

[sirkickyass]

It's pretty clear that the articles are quoting from the body of the complaint rather than from the contractual terms themselves. I'm reserving judgment until I can see a copy of the complaint with the exhibits attached.

The whole main claim relies upon the status of the right as "exclusive." Given that PSL's were not common in the late 1980s, I have no idea if it was even contemplated they would open the rights up to others at any point in the future. If they never thought they were going to offer it to anyone else, it's highly possible the "exclusive" nature of the right was never memorialized in the Club 100 terms. It also sounds like the "equity" they own in the club is almost like a conditional lien that gets triggered if the club ever moves rather than a true ownership right. The entire club's status is so bizarre that it's impossible to have an opinion on the merits of the suit without seeing the agreement.

Now the secondary food value claim I have no problem believing.

 

[Hopper]

I think I seen somewhere where it said there wasn't any formal contract, but that the "operating rules" outlined the terms of membership, etc. If I remember rightly, Miller was given the right to make the operating rules and was given "stewardship" of the club.

Like that there one guy done said in Animal House, eh? "Ya screwed up, Flounder. Ya trusted us."

 

[sirkickyass]

I think I seen somewhere where it said there wasn't any formal contract, but that the "operating rules" outlined the terms of membership, etc. If I remember rightly, Miller was given the right to make the operating rules and was given "stewardship" of the club.

I'd personally be astonished if Salt Lake's business leaders were willing to give up six figures and not have whatever they were purchasing enshrined in some sort of writing. If that's the case, I guess that tells you what it takes to succeed in business in Salt Lake City.

If it's the case that the "operating rules" outlined the terms of the membership then the action comes down to who, if anybody, has the right to amend the operating rules and under what terms.

In any event, for them to have a case at all they'll have to have some showing of proof regarding exclusivity or some other contractual duty on the part of the team. That should mean attaching either the current or a previous version of the operating rules to the complaint if no formal contract exists.

 

[Hopper]

Well, Kicky, among other things Miller (or the Jazz franchise, whoever) was charged with breach of fiduciary duty. I aint no damn bottom feeder, but I think that's different from an explicit contractual duty.

 

[sirkickyass]

Well, Kicky, among other things Miller (or the Jazz franchise, whoever) was charged with breach of fiduciary duty. I aint no damn bottom feeder, but I think that's different from an explicit contractual duty.

Well, as a practical matter I'll tell you that the likely reason the plaintiffs pled that is because it's the easiest duty to prove a breach of because it has the highest standards. Regardless of whether or not it's true, you'd plead a fiduciary relationship to survive a procedural motion to dismiss.

On another practical note, fiduciary duties aren't assumed. They have to be explicitly stated in some form. At the least they'd have to attach an affadavit of one of the plaintiffs stating that Larry Miller bound himself in some way to that standard of care to the 100 club. If they really want to try to win the claim at the trial level, they're going to have to provide evidence that such a duty existed, the best evidence of which would be a formalized agreement between themselves and the Jazz where Miller takes on the duty as part of his "steward" role.

 

[Hopper]

On another practical note, fiduciary duties aren't assumed. They have to be explicitly stated in some form.

Ya think? I thought they were generally implied, by the law, not by express agreement, by virtue of the nature of the relationship in question.

 

[sirkickyass]

Ya think? I thought they were generally implied, by the law, not by express agreement, by virtue of the nature of the relationship in question.

I omitted a clause I meant to include there. It should have read "they have to be explicitly stated in some form; either by operation of law under an applicable statute or legal precedent or by an assumption of the duty through a mutually-signed instrument."

As far as I know (and I haven't specifically researched Utah law on the issue), there isn't some sort of precedent for a fiduciary duty between a club "steward" and the club that occurs by operation of law. In fact, the choice of the word steward might be significant because they didn't choose the word fiduciary.

 

[bigb]

This thread has become amazingly boring for me to read, since I have no clue what kicky and aint are saying (and don't really want to know, either).

 

[Hopper]

I have no clue what kicky and aint are saying (and don't really want to know, either).

Well, Ratch, lemme tell ya anyways, eh? We aint sayin nuthin that aint purty simple. The Jazz, they ROCK, and them rich-*** whiners can just go eat a hot dog, see?