the commissioner and other owners are praying this thing holds up, it's their easy out. Although I don't think Sterling is done yet.
Are there any litigation attorneys in the house? and or maybe an elder law / probate attorney? I have a few questions.
he ruled he finds Shelly credible and doesn't believe she did anything wrong. Is that enough to say she's sole trustee? It doesn't appear to me the judge ruled Donald to be mentally incompetent, at least not yet. I would think he needs a stronger opinion on Donald's health to make that ruling.
can he decides who owns the Clippers? the trust or Donald? Since it involves a trust he may have that authority, but why can't the trust be revoked?
Now to matters outside the realms of probate court
can he rule a sale can take place despite whatever other legal matters Donald may pursue? that seems a bit overreaching to me. But there may be precedent for such a ruling
can he actually take away somebody's rights because he thinks the price may go down? seriously? I think that can't be justified on so many levels, like who is he to project market value and / or what the NBA can or will do in the court of law. That ruling seems totally absurd to me
anyhow, he didn't issue anything in writing yet, maybe his written words will be a tad bit different than his spoken words.
what a fucked up, yet interesting process
Are there any litigation attorneys in the house? and or maybe an elder law / probate attorney? I have a few questions.
he ruled he finds Shelly credible and doesn't believe she did anything wrong. Is that enough to say she's sole trustee? It doesn't appear to me the judge ruled Donald to be mentally incompetent, at least not yet. I would think he needs a stronger opinion on Donald's health to make that ruling.
can he decides who owns the Clippers? the trust or Donald? Since it involves a trust he may have that authority, but why can't the trust be revoked?
Now to matters outside the realms of probate court
can he rule a sale can take place despite whatever other legal matters Donald may pursue? that seems a bit overreaching to me. But there may be precedent for such a ruling
can he actually take away somebody's rights because he thinks the price may go down? seriously? I think that can't be justified on so many levels, like who is he to project market value and / or what the NBA can or will do in the court of law. That ruling seems totally absurd to me
anyhow, he didn't issue anything in writing yet, maybe his written words will be a tad bit different than his spoken words.
what a fucked up, yet interesting process
but that's actually the core of my question, can a judge, especially a probate court judge, make a ruling that mitigates the other legal options Donald Sterling has available to him?
stated differently, can a judge say that's my decision and you can't appeal it? My gut says no, but I'm not a legal expert. Especially so with respect to probate law in the State of CA. There may be some sort of precedence for that type of ruling out there, but otherwise I think he may have reached too far.
Finally an article that talks about his options now, everything to this point was only about the judge's ruling.
Donald Sterling’s hopes of halting the Clippers’ sale rely on two legal maneuvers. The first could come in the next two weeks. The judge is expected to sign a statement of decision Tuesday, and Donald Sterling would have 10 court days to file an objection. If it is overruled by Levanas, as expected, Donald Sterling’s lawyers say that they would file a writ, essentially an expedited appeal asking to overturn Levanas’s decision to allow the sale to be completed while the case is being appealed.
The other is a federal challenge filed last week by Donald Sterling asserting that Rochelle Sterling no longer has the authority to complete the sale because Donald Sterling became the sole shareholder after he revoked the trust June 9.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/s...uling-donald-sterling-sale-clippers.html?_r=0
Donald Sterling’s hopes of halting the Clippers’ sale rely on two legal maneuvers. The first could come in the next two weeks. The judge is expected to sign a statement of decision Tuesday, and Donald Sterling would have 10 court days to file an objection. If it is overruled by Levanas, as expected, Donald Sterling’s lawyers say that they would file a writ, essentially an expedited appeal asking to overturn Levanas’s decision to allow the sale to be completed while the case is being appealed.
The other is a federal challenge filed last week by Donald Sterling asserting that Rochelle Sterling no longer has the authority to complete the sale because Donald Sterling became the sole shareholder after he revoked the trust June 9.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/s...uling-donald-sterling-sale-clippers.html?_r=0
Levanas endorsed the theme, posited by Rochelle Sterling’s lawyers, that giving Donald Sterling the opportunity to scuttle the sale would torpedo the value of the franchise. Richard Parsons, the Clippers’ interim chief executive, testified last week that Coach Doc Rivers has considered leaving the team if Sterling remained as owner. Anwar Zakkour, Bank of America’s co-head of technology and media investment, testified that Ballmer’s sale price was 12 times the team’s revenue, an unheard-of ratio.
Levanas outlined several possible outcomes of preventing the sale and concluded that it could cost the Sterling trust as much as $400 million — the difference between Ballmer’s bid and the next highest.
-----------------------------------------------
Levanas outlined several possible outcomes of preventing the sale and concluded that it could cost the Sterling trust as much as $400 million — the difference between Ballmer’s bid and the next highest.
-----------------------------------------------
^^^^^
this is the part of the ruling I think presents a problem for the judge going forward, how can he justify taking away Sterling's legal rights because he thinks the value of the team may decline? thus the sale has to be expedited? should that really have any bearing on his decision? is he sure 2 billion won't be on the table? who's to say Ballmer won't get desperate and offer Sterling 3 billion and Donald accepts after saving face? why should that impact any legal process as to whether or not Donald has to sell?
again, any litigation or probate atty in the house?
this is the part of the ruling I think presents a problem for the judge going forward, how can he justify taking away Sterling's legal rights because he thinks the value of the team may decline? thus the sale has to be expedited? should that really have any bearing on his decision? is he sure 2 billion won't be on the table? who's to say Ballmer won't get desperate and offer Sterling 3 billion and Donald accepts after saving face? why should that impact any legal process as to whether or not Donald has to sell?
again, any litigation or probate atty in the house?
