Kingsfan23
All-Star
Has there been a fanbase that has went through so much off the court S*** in one year (and we still have a third of it left!)? Actually it fills the space when the team is having a down talent period
Hansen behind STOP $$$
- Thread starter nebs
- Start date
ninjabiscuit
Bench
Friend sent me a link to the S**ttle online fishwrap which had a few articles on the matter.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021636336_chrishansenxml.html
Anyhow the gist seems to be that not only did he screw up in CA but now there are mayoral candidates saying they want nothing to do with him. Regardless of losing this round he did have a lot of investment property for the potential arena and now if nobody in town wants to work with him and thinks he isn't to be trusted ... good times.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021636336_chrishansenxml.html
Anyhow the gist seems to be that not only did he screw up in CA but now there are mayoral candidates saying they want nothing to do with him. Regardless of losing this round he did have a lot of investment property for the potential arena and now if nobody in town wants to work with him and thinks he isn't to be trusted ... good times.
Agent23
Starter
You still hate the Maloofs the same but your hate for Hansen has grown to make it seem like you hate the Maloofs less lol
Right! We still despise the maloof's as much as ever.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
This is essentially correct, but it does vary. If there was an existing contract it would be clear. The line gets fuzzy once you head into business relationships, but I know of cases that have found interference for convincing would be buyers to not buy from a particular seller.
Little different here -- here you are saying he would be paying a seller not to sell. And its real property too.
The thing is, in some jurisidictions this might not qualify. In some places they want there to be an underlying tort before they'll give you tortious interference. So for instance if Hansen had threatened to break their knees if they sold to Vivek, you could get him for tortious interference. But just offering them money not to maybe not. In any case its become a catch all claim that you throw on to almost any commercial claim anymore. If I was advising Vivek and wanted to chase Hansen off I might tell him to make a claim (if there was fire behind the smoke) just to chase Hansen off and spook the property holder. Something stinks here and I doubt it would get tossed on summary judgment. But it really depends on where California law Is settled on that tort. Should really ask LPKingsfan, he went to law school out here, but seemed to be back in CA to study for the bar. If that's CA bar he might be up to date on the latest cases in the field.
LPKingsFan
All-Star
The CA bar prep courses don't really focus on the latest cases, and really don't cover much in torts or contracts that's California specific, so I can't be much help in that regard, I'm afraid.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Here, allow me to engage in a little preliminary (very) legal research via the wonderful copy/paste method. Doesn't look good:
P.S. You may send me my $750 via PayPal.
In CA, here is the basic interference test nicely laid out:
“The five elements for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage are: (1) [a]n economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.” (Youst v. Longo (1987) 43 Cal.3d 64, 71, fn. 6 [233 Cal.Rptr. 294, 729 P.2d 728].)
Of those 5 elements:
1) the first part of #1 is a question mark, unless merely asking to buy the parcel of land itself creates an economic relationship. However as the owner of the Macy's store in the old mall, you could argue economic relationships with all kinds of other parties (city, previous mall owner etc.) just not necessarily Vivek and company. More research needed. “[A]n essential element of the tort of intentional interference with prospective business advantage is the existence of a business relationship with which the tortfeasor interfered. Although this need not be a contractual relationship, an existing relationship is required.” (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 546 [30 Cal.Rptr.2d 706], internal citations omitted.) Need to read the cases to see if anybody gets into better detail what is considered an existing relationship. Is there a time period? A particular act? Etc.
The second part of #1 is obvious and a clear win.
2) obvious, why Hansen would be involved
3) obvious,BUT, note below: this is the section where various jurisdictions differ on the nature of the intentional acts which trigger the tort
4) that's what we are alleging, he stopped the sale
5) and again, like the second part of part #1, the strength of this case would be the size of the deal being held up. Big numbers make defendant's nervous.
Ok, now, as to #3, that is the crux of the issue, and from what I am seeing in the case law, looks like a difficult argument to win in California.
This is very unfavorable, but I would have to see whether its been followed in the years since: “If a party has no liability in tort for refusing to perform an existing contract, no matter what the reason, he or she certainly should not have to bear a burden in tort for refusing to enter into a contract where he or she has no obligation to do so. If that same party cannot conspire with a third party to breach or interfere with his or her own contract then certainly the result should be no different where the ‘conspiracy’ is to disrupt a relationship which has not even risen to the dignity of an existing contract and the party to that relationship was entirely free to ‘disrupt’ it on his or her own without legal restraint or penalty.” (Kasparian v. County of Los Angeles (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 242, 266 [45 Cal.Rptr.2d 90], original italics.) Basically it is noting that if a party was under no legal obligation to enter into a contract, then how could somebody else conspiring with them not to do so be illegal? Seems the most extreme case at first blush, but indicates the major problem.
More mainstream you have the CA Supreme Court:
“[A] plaintiff seeking to recover for an alleged interference with prospective contractual or economic relations must plead and prove as part of its case-in-chief that the defendant not only knowingly interfered with the plaintiff’s expectancy, but engaged in conduct that was wrongful by some legal measure other than the fact of interference itself.” (Della Penna, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 393.) That still doesn't tell you what is "wrongful", but indicates merely interfering alone isn't enough.
This case cited Della Penna:
“Justice Mosk’s concurring opinion in Della Penna advocates that proscribed conduct be limited to means that are independently tortious or a restraint of trade. The Oregon Supreme Court suggests that conduct may be wrongful if it violates ‘a statute or other regulation, or a recognized rule of common law, or perhaps an established standard of a trade or profession.’ . . . Our Supreme Court may later have occasion to clarify the meaning of ‘wrongful conduct’ or ‘wrongfulness,’ or it may be that a precise definition proves impossible.” (Arntz Contracting Co. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 464, 477—478 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 888], internal citations omitted.) Which sounded like it opened some doors.
This one tried to clarify: “Commonly included among improper means are actions which are independently actionable, violations of federal or state law or unethical business practices, e.g., violence, misrepresentation, unfounded litigation, defamation, trade libel or trade mark infringement.” (PMC, Inc., supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 603, internal citation omitted.) Which isn't helpful unless Hansen is telling the real estate guys Vivek sleeps with goats and is part of the Indian Mafia or some such.
And if this court had it right, they've actually shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiff: “Since the crux of the competition privilege is that one can interfere with a competitor’s prospective contractual relationship with a third party as long as the interfering conduct is not independently wrongful (i.e., wrongful apart from the fact of the interference itself), Della Penna’s requirement that a plaintiff plead and prove such wrongful conduct in order to recover for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage has resulted in a shift of burden of proof. It is now the plaintiff’s burden to prove, as an element of the cause of action itself, that the defendant’s conduct was independently wrongful and, therefore, was not privileged rather than the defendant’s burden to prove, as an affirmative defense, that it’s [sic] conduct was not independently wrongful and therefore was privileged.” (Bed, Bath & Beyond of La Jolla, Inc. v. La Jolla Village Square Venture Partners (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 867, 881 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 830].)
My advice? Forum shop. It belongs in CA, but the real estate guys are New York, Hansen has some connection to Washington, see fi somebody is more favorable. In any case, at first blush Hansen paying them to not conclude a deal with Vivek may not be actionable, at least under that theory. Unless he's being dirty. Onto to eminent domain.
P.S. You may send me my $750 via PayPal.
In CA, here is the basic interference test nicely laid out:
“The five elements for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage are: (1) [a]n economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.” (Youst v. Longo (1987) 43 Cal.3d 64, 71, fn. 6 [233 Cal.Rptr. 294, 729 P.2d 728].)
Of those 5 elements:
1) the first part of #1 is a question mark, unless merely asking to buy the parcel of land itself creates an economic relationship. However as the owner of the Macy's store in the old mall, you could argue economic relationships with all kinds of other parties (city, previous mall owner etc.) just not necessarily Vivek and company. More research needed. “[A]n essential element of the tort of intentional interference with prospective business advantage is the existence of a business relationship with which the tortfeasor interfered. Although this need not be a contractual relationship, an existing relationship is required.” (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 546 [30 Cal.Rptr.2d 706], internal citations omitted.) Need to read the cases to see if anybody gets into better detail what is considered an existing relationship. Is there a time period? A particular act? Etc.
The second part of #1 is obvious and a clear win.
2) obvious, why Hansen would be involved
3) obvious,BUT, note below: this is the section where various jurisdictions differ on the nature of the intentional acts which trigger the tort
4) that's what we are alleging, he stopped the sale
5) and again, like the second part of part #1, the strength of this case would be the size of the deal being held up. Big numbers make defendant's nervous.
Ok, now, as to #3, that is the crux of the issue, and from what I am seeing in the case law, looks like a difficult argument to win in California.
This is very unfavorable, but I would have to see whether its been followed in the years since: “If a party has no liability in tort for refusing to perform an existing contract, no matter what the reason, he or she certainly should not have to bear a burden in tort for refusing to enter into a contract where he or she has no obligation to do so. If that same party cannot conspire with a third party to breach or interfere with his or her own contract then certainly the result should be no different where the ‘conspiracy’ is to disrupt a relationship which has not even risen to the dignity of an existing contract and the party to that relationship was entirely free to ‘disrupt’ it on his or her own without legal restraint or penalty.” (Kasparian v. County of Los Angeles (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 242, 266 [45 Cal.Rptr.2d 90], original italics.) Basically it is noting that if a party was under no legal obligation to enter into a contract, then how could somebody else conspiring with them not to do so be illegal? Seems the most extreme case at first blush, but indicates the major problem.
More mainstream you have the CA Supreme Court:
“[A] plaintiff seeking to recover for an alleged interference with prospective contractual or economic relations must plead and prove as part of its case-in-chief that the defendant not only knowingly interfered with the plaintiff’s expectancy, but engaged in conduct that was wrongful by some legal measure other than the fact of interference itself.” (Della Penna, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 393.) That still doesn't tell you what is "wrongful", but indicates merely interfering alone isn't enough.
This case cited Della Penna:
“Justice Mosk’s concurring opinion in Della Penna advocates that proscribed conduct be limited to means that are independently tortious or a restraint of trade. The Oregon Supreme Court suggests that conduct may be wrongful if it violates ‘a statute or other regulation, or a recognized rule of common law, or perhaps an established standard of a trade or profession.’ . . . Our Supreme Court may later have occasion to clarify the meaning of ‘wrongful conduct’ or ‘wrongfulness,’ or it may be that a precise definition proves impossible.” (Arntz Contracting Co. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 464, 477—478 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 888], internal citations omitted.) Which sounded like it opened some doors.
This one tried to clarify: “Commonly included among improper means are actions which are independently actionable, violations of federal or state law or unethical business practices, e.g., violence, misrepresentation, unfounded litigation, defamation, trade libel or trade mark infringement.” (PMC, Inc., supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 603, internal citation omitted.) Which isn't helpful unless Hansen is telling the real estate guys Vivek sleeps with goats and is part of the Indian Mafia or some such.
And if this court had it right, they've actually shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiff: “Since the crux of the competition privilege is that one can interfere with a competitor’s prospective contractual relationship with a third party as long as the interfering conduct is not independently wrongful (i.e., wrongful apart from the fact of the interference itself), Della Penna’s requirement that a plaintiff plead and prove such wrongful conduct in order to recover for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage has resulted in a shift of burden of proof. It is now the plaintiff’s burden to prove, as an element of the cause of action itself, that the defendant’s conduct was independently wrongful and, therefore, was not privileged rather than the defendant’s burden to prove, as an affirmative defense, that it’s [sic] conduct was not independently wrongful and therefore was privileged.” (Bed, Bath & Beyond of La Jolla, Inc. v. La Jolla Village Square Venture Partners (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 867, 881 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 830].)
My advice? Forum shop. It belongs in CA, but the real estate guys are New York, Hansen has some connection to Washington, see fi somebody is more favorable. In any case, at first blush Hansen paying them to not conclude a deal with Vivek may not be actionable, at least under that theory. Unless he's being dirty. Onto to eminent domain.
Last edited:
ninjabiscuit
Bench
Thanks for the insight, Brick. If it comes down to it, looks like eminent domain might be handy.
Kingsfan23
All-Star
Downtownarena.org wants Hansen to destroy signatures - http://www.king5.com/news/arena/Sacramento-arena-hansen-open-letter-220364951.html
On the face of it I'm not sure what to think... I wouldn't think STOP or the anti-arena signature gatherers are even in a threatening position at this time in terms of getting what they need to put this on the ballot (but maybe I'm wrong?). I think the public would vote for the arena even if it was on the ballot. To me its almost as if Hansen complies it gives the scumbag an opportunity to repair his name and get back in the good graces of the NBA as if nothing happened
On the face of it I'm not sure what to think... I wouldn't think STOP or the anti-arena signature gatherers are even in a threatening position at this time in terms of getting what they need to put this on the ballot (but maybe I'm wrong?). I think the public would vote for the arena even if it was on the ballot. To me its almost as if Hansen complies it gives the scumbag an opportunity to repair his name and get back in the good graces of the NBA as if nothing happened
PurpleHaze
All-Star
I'd like to see Hansen personally, by hand, destroy all the ill got petitions. Call a news conference, shredding them methodically before TV lights and cameras - broadcast live on NBA TV for the world to see! He could do it, it wouldn't be hard. After all, Hansen lives not in Seattle but in San Francisco. He could easily hop right over to Sacramento with real attempt to lift his thoroughly down in the dumpster image. Otherwise, the sniveling scum deserves continued scorn from all corners.
Kingsfan23
All-Star
the thing I'm concerned with is I am not of the belief that the signatures he has matters. The anti-arena movement is rag tag, and only he was primarily behind it. I'm of the belief that this thing 90%+ doesn't get to any type of ballot. So in essence him destroying the signatures would only serve for him to repair image. If that is the case (if), as far as I'm concerned, he can keep his signatures, he has earned them and his low reputation/inability to get into the NBA.
fansinceday1
Starter
He should destroy those signatures cause without hansen, the ragtag STOP group doesn't even get off the ground. They are nothing without hansen and his cash.
I remember STOP having a "rally" months ago and how many people showed up, 10? It was a complete joke. STOP is a complete joke.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
This destroy signatures stuff is a bit dicey. Unless Hansen founded STOP, you are asking an outside monetary contributor to ask a political advocacy group to destroy signatures willingly given to it by like minded individuals. If STOP is a threat to make its goal, go for it. If not, that has undemocratic undertones and can boomerang and give you a black eye. Last thing you want is STOP being able to boomerang such an issue around on you, take its fight to the people and say see? Vivek and Co. don't care about democracy! They don't want you to have a say, and they're trying to destroy your voice! Even if you support the arena give us your signature so the common people can be heard, not suppressed by billionaires! Then they get a few thousand people just pissed at the perceived process.
Brick, the thing to remember is that STOP doesn't have those signatures yet. They were being collected by others to assist STOP in the vote, but STOP does not possess the signatures and does not own them. In fact, STOP keeps saying how they did not take any money from Hansen, how they are independent and grassroots, etc., to distance themselves from Hansen. I don't see how they can complain that they don't get to use signatures that they didn't collect if Hansen wants to not submit them.
If those that signed the forms still want to have their signatures collected, they can track down STOP and sign the forms they are using.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
what others? If STOP sends out signature collectors, those people are still STOP. And as I understand it all Hansen did was funnel a chunk of money into a PAC. Southern California PAC too. Were they independently operating in Sacto? Or did STOP subcontract out its signature collecting duties?
Which relationship is correct?:
Hansen --> PAC --> STOP --> signature collectors
Hansen --> PAC --> signature collectors --> STOP
Remember, Hansen had every right to give money to that group or any group, if he had reported it. Your best argument is that if he had reported it as he should, then not everybody who signed would have done so knowing he was behind it.
Agreed.
I don't agree with the idea of destroying signatures on a petition. It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I would much prefer they have some of the signatures thrown out because they were obtained under false pretenses and the people have since requested their names be removed.
Your second example above is more appropriate than the first. STOP has a couple volunteers that collect signatures sporadically at farmer's markets, etc., however the main signature gathering thrust is from Hansen's funds going to a lawyer (Loeb&Loeb) to a PAC (Citizens for a Voice in Government) to a signature gathering company (Olsen). Those signatures are intended to aid STOP, however STOP does not yet have them (as I understand it). I don't know if/when they were to be handed over. I know that there is no known direct contractual relationship between STOP and Hansen that has been reported. STOP is wanting the signatures but are distancing themselves from the money and scandal. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.
I agree tossing them would be preferrable, but if the entity in charge of gathering the signatures decided on their own not to turn them in (for whatever reason), I wouldn't scoff at that either.
To follow up, it sounds like the efforts to collect signatures was coordinated, but not directly paid for, by STOP. They do not own the signatures. I don't know if they were going to turn them all in together or how that would be handled.....
whozit
Starter
I would agree with this. I think Brick is right.
I understand the "let it go" line of thought. But all along the reason that Sacramento has been winning battles is because they got control of a lot of key things. This is just another one of those things.
If Hansen is prompted into pulling back the signatures, then by all means pull them back. If not, we continue the hundreds of hours that people like Crown Downtown and Region Builders are putting in to keeping STOP in a losing position.
This isn't just happening because some people really twitter a lot. If this was a war, these guys would be the guys in the trenches doing the real work. At this point, it might sound nice to some to kick back and let STOP die on the vine. But external influences made a difference in their results before and it could again. You take every legit shot you can and wear them down. This is a free one courtesy of Chris Hansen.
If Hansen is prompted into pulling back the signatures, then by all means pull them back. If not, we continue the hundreds of hours that people like Crown Downtown and Region Builders are putting in to keeping STOP in a losing position.
This isn't just happening because some people really twitter a lot. If this was a war, these guys would be the guys in the trenches doing the real work. At this point, it might sound nice to some to kick back and let STOP die on the vine. But external influences made a difference in their results before and it could again. You take every legit shot you can and wear them down. This is a free one courtesy of Chris Hansen.
From the Bee today:
Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/city-beat/2...file-petitions-he-financed.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/city-beat/2...file-petitions-he-financed.html#storylink=cpy
whozit
Starter
A least one of the news reports indicated that it does.
edit: The article Warhawk linked to, states that Stop's totals do include them. I believe I've read it elsewhere also.
Last edited:
Kingsfan23
All-Star
I would still highly doubt STOP's self-reported figure personally. I mean if they in reality have only a couple thousand signatures how are they going to portray that to the media? Of course many campaigns inflate to give a false sense of legitimacy and momentum to their campaign, even if there is none. there is probably a net negative for how many signatures they are gathering daily currently
Padrino
All-Star
beyond that, most of these types of signature-gathering ventures need significantly more signatures than the required number, given that a great many of the individuals who freely offered their signatures (not counting those in dispute) don't actually maintain a residence within the necessary county...
fansinceday1
Starter
IF this goes to the voters I really fear this thing goes down to defeat. It's gonna get dirty and your gonna see money coming in from down south and up north to defeat this thing. If you convince voters that tax money is gonna be used and that this is a bad deal for the tax payer it will go down big. This whole thing is so dirty its infuriating.
I also want to know what is going to be done about STOP blatantly lying about the arena deal. Doesn't that put the entire signature gathering venture in doubt?
I also want to know what is going to be done about STOP blatantly lying about the arena deal. Doesn't that put the entire signature gathering venture in doubt?
Yes, it does.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
No, its called politics. Which is another word for, we think you are stupid and are going to blatantly try to manipulate your stupidity for our purposes. Truth doesn't have anything to do with it unless they get called on it. Scaring people to get them to react in a controlled way, misinforming them, its all considered par for the course.
Similar threads
- NBC Sports BayArea
- Kings News Links
- NBC Sports BayArea
- Kings News Links
- NBC Sports BayArea
- Kings News Links
