Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:23 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: One for the lawyers
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5260
Location: Pittsburgh
Do any of you fine representatives of the legal profession out there have an opinion as to whether this suit is going to get tossed?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... MW20130325

"The lawsuit's sole cause of action is tortious interference with a contract, claiming that BioGenesis "induced" players to violate MLB's drug prevention program, which bars players from using certain banned substances."

In reality (thought they won't admit it), MLB is really after the documents that Biogenesis will be forced to produce in discovery, in the hopes of finding evidence that will permit them to go after players.

I can't see that they have any grounds for suing, and think that the judge should toss them right out of court. But I'm not lawyer, let alone an expert on contracts. What say you?

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: One for the lawyers
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:33 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10649
sisyphus wrote:
I can't see that they have any grounds for suing, and think that the judge should toss them right out of court. But I'm not lawyer, let alone an expert on contracts. What say you?

Inducement of breach of contract is a very rarely-filed tort claim, since juries generally view the claimed damages as speculative. I have seen it just a handful of times in 24 years of practice, and usually, as an "add-on" claim to the better claims for breach of contract or tortious interference with contract.

However, claims are generally not tossed out of court at the early stage (pleading stage) unless the complaint was so poorly drafted that it failed to allege a necessary element of the claim. If the necessary elements have been alleged, the claim would survive the first attack (the pleading stage).

As you have very cogently pointed out, once the claim gets beyond the pleading stage, then MLB can engage in discovery.

That would include document requests, requests for e-mail communications, patient records, and depositions.

It is actually likely that the case would survive a challenge at the outset (something called a demurrer or Rule 12(b)(6) challenge in Federal Court), since such challenges are not based on the merits but merely on the adequacy of the initial allegations, where the court assumes that the allegations are true for purposes of such challenge.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: One for the lawyers
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:19 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6240
My head is spinning..... :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: One for the lawyers
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5709
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
I concur (couldn't resist using this word) with everything that Bucfan wrote. Obtaining a dismissal at the initial stage of the lawsuit is very difficult. In my best attempt to characterize the standard in non-legalize, a dismissal will only be granted if, based upon the allegations in the Petition/Complaint, the Plaintiff (MLB) could prove no set of facts entitling it to prevail.

If that file landed on my desk and I was asked to defend it, I'd be looking at the following:

What contract was Biogenesis allegedly interfering with by supposedly "inducing" the players to breach or to violate? I cannot claim to be an expert when it comes to all of the potential contracts that may exist in MLB, the only potential contract that I can think of that is between MLB and an individual player would involve the collective bargaining agreement. I would think that contract would be signed by MLB and the Player's Union. While the individual player may be bound by the terms of that agreement, the individual player would not be a signatory. The individual player would be bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement by virtue of the contract that exists between the individual player and the union.

I would argue that the individual player does not have a "contract" with MLB. I would argue that there is no "contractual term" which prevents a player from using performance enhancing drugs. If a player exercises his free will and chooses to use a PED, he risks being ruled ineligible under the contractual terms negotiated between MLB and the union. That player does not have the "right" to participate in MLB and must face the consequences of his personal decision. I would also argue that, by enacting a penalty for those who get caught using PEDs, MLB reasonably anticipates that players will violate the rules. Finally, I'd argue that MLB is putting the proverbial cart in front of the horse. Even if they can somehow prove the existence of a "contract" between a particular player and MLB which could be tortiously interfered with, how can MLB prove the element of breach unless and until a particular player has been shown to breach that contract? If they suspect that Ryan Braun used PEDs but Ryan Braun is still eligible and not suspended, MLB can't - under any circumstances - prove damages. And, if you can't prove damages, you can't win. Those two arguments: (1) no contract existed and (2) can't prove damages . . . might just be grounds for dismissal. I wouldn't say "slam dunk," but you've got a fighting chance.

OK . . . to whom do I send a bill?

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: One for the lawyers
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 2209
Location: Naples, FL
First, I'd argue that Marbury v. Madison was a grand usurpation of power and argue that the courts should chill out a little bit. During the uproar, I'd make some great argument about why I'm right (this argument is proprietary and I'm not telling any of you for free in a forum). Then I'd suspend Braun.

Hope this helps.

_________________
AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: One for the lawyers
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:36 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:28 am
Posts: 1080
where does doctor patient confidentiality play into this?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: One for the lawyers
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:59 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:27 am
Posts: 1407
Location: Eastern Shore
No. 9 wrote:
OK . . . to whom do I send a bill?

Sisyphus....


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: One for the lawyers
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5260
Location: Pittsburgh
Mister Pittsburgh wrote:
where does doctor patient confidentiality play into this?

It doesn't, the head of Biogenesis calls himself a doctor, but he has no degree.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: One for the lawyers
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5260
Location: Pittsburgh
val wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
OK . . . to whom do I send a bill?

Sisyphus....

Thanks a lot :lol:

They can try suing me to get me to pay for their services, but I'll use the little known legal option known as the "Blood from a Stone" defense. As in, you can't get blood from a stone.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: One for the lawyers
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:43 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
sisyphus wrote:
val wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
OK . . . to whom do I send a bill?

Sisyphus....

Thanks a lot :lol:

They can try suing me to get me to pay for their services, but I'll use the little known legal option known as the "Blood from a Stone" defense. As in, you can't get blood from a stone.

We in the legal profession call that being "judgmentproof."

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits