City Closing Arguments
posted by on June 26 at 12:25 PM
The Sonics trial is breaking for lunch right now, but before the break the city began its closing arguments.
One notable thing so far: Judge Marsha Pechman interrupted the city’s presentation to ask the city’s attorney, Paul Lawrence, a pointed question: If she made the Sonics stay, would the parties just be back before the court soon enough asking her to resolve future disputes?
This significance of her question is this: She seemed to be worried that the city would continue to try and “undermine its own tenant.” Looks to me like she believes the city has had an ulterior motive here all along: forcing Clay Bennett to sell.
That doesn’t bode well for the city.
I cannot believe that Bennett's attorneys have managed to poison an otherwise clear-cut case: Lease signed, lease broken. How the hell did anything else become relevant?
Bye-bye Sonics?
So, what will it mean if all your predictions are totally off and the case comes out the other way?
the parties will be back in court no matter what she rules. how is that relevant to enforcing a lease without an escape clause?
1) This should be a clear-cut case.
2) Upon what mandate has the city been working behind the scenes trying to find buyers for the Sonics?
3) Seattle is blowing an opportunity to stand up to the NBA and slam the door on their asses as they leave town.
Clay Bennett & Co. haven't broken the lease. I don't get what the City of Seattle is suing about yet. I'm all for keeping the Sonics here, but who is suing who for what at this point? Clay hasn't broken the lease (yet) and the Sonics are still playing in Seattle. Lawyers out there -- don't they have to technically break the lease before Seattle can sue?
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.