Potential lawsuit called "premature"

[VF21]

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/02/5311482/sacramento-arena-opponents-makes.html

Take it for what it's worth. Since Senator Steinberg authored legislation to ease the CEQA requirements and fast-track the arena, I don't think the lawsuit will hold up.

 

[kennadog]

It's bothersome, but no actual funds have been committed to any arena project, yet. That's why it's a non-binding term sheet (same as Seattle right now). I know they cited some case law in their letter that said a term sheet could be challenged as a commitment of funding, but I suspect the citation as maybe not exactly applicable to this situation.

What I find really suspect is that they won't say who is really behind this. It's some big secret? I smell Maloofs and/or Seattle behind this. Local anti-arena groups don't exactly hide themselves or have a need to. Very, very suspicious of this suit. Remember when somebody from Sacramento was going to sue Anaheim? Difference is that party was open and above board, not sneaking around anonymously behind some lawyers.

 

[Section 101]

It's bothersome, but no actual funds have been committed to any arena project, yet. That's why it's a non-binding term sheet (same as Seattle right now). I know they cited some case law in their letter that said a term sheet could be challenged as a commitment of funding, but I suspect the citation as maybe not exactly applicable to this situation.

What I find really suspect is that they won't say who is really behind this. It's some big secret? I smell Maloofs and/or Seattle behind this. Local anti-arena groups don't exactly hide themselves or have a need to. Very, very suspicious of this suit. Remember when somebody from Sacramento was going to sue Anaheim? Difference is that party was open and above board, not sneaking around anonymously behind some lawyers.

I would think the first thing would be to find out who is behind it to determine if they even have standing to file a suit.

 

[whozit]

I would think the first thing would be to find out who is behind it to determine if they even have standing to file a suit.

Chris Daniels was in NY and I believe he broke the story. Coincidence?

There was twitter correspondence to that but I don't remember who tweeted it ............

 

[VF21]

Chris Daniels was in NY and I believe he broke the story. Coincidence?

There was twitter correspondence to that but I don't remember who tweeted it ............

Carmichael Dave tried to find who broke the story and it all led back to Chris Daniels. I don't think it's a coincidence. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[uolj]

I think there's a little too much paranoia going on here.

There are plenty of citizens against virtually everything in Sacramento that could be behind this. I don't think we need to start dreaming up conspiracies. And I don't get the consistent disdain for Daniels, either.

This is most likely a non-issue like many other lawsuits have been. If it becomes an issue, I'll worry then.

 

[kennadog]

I think there's a little too much paranoia going on here.

There are plenty of citizens against virtually everything in Sacramento that could be behind this. I don't think we need to start dreaming up conspiracies. And I don't get the consistent disdain for Daniels, either.

This is most likely a non-issue like many other lawsuits have been. If it becomes an issue, I'll worry then.

Yes, but why would they want to be anonymous? I'd think they'd be crowing about being the party or parties behind the lawsuit.

I think any lawsuit won't stand up, as the city has made sure to dot i's and cross t's on this, for the very reason of a threat of a lawsuit all along.

 

[ninjabiscuit]

@ChrisDaniels5 has tweeted about the legislation three times today.

 

[whozit]

@ChrisDaniels5 has tweeted about the legislation three times today.

That legislation or the judge who is going to throw out part of AB900? I think his tweets were about the latter.

However, the Bee has already come out with the Sacramento side of the story.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/04/5316645/sacramento-arena-construction.html

 

[ninjabiscuit]

That legislation or the judge who is going to throw out part of AB900? I think his tweets were about the latter.

However, the Bee has already come out with the Sacramento side of the story.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/04/5316645/sacramento-arena-construction.html

Yep, just saw the piece in the Bee. Good that the issue has been acknowledged and we're working on it.

 

[uolj]

From Ryan Lillis of the Bee, this lawsuit is from STOP, the people best known for their barbecue.

STOP - which tried to gather signatures for #arena initiative last year - behind latest attempt. They don't know when or how they'll start

https://twitter.com/Ryan_Lillis/status/319959514176696320

 

[kennadog]

From Ryan Lillis of the Bee, this lawsuit is from STOP, the people best known for their barbecue.
https://twitter.com/Ryan_Lillis/status/319959514176696320

STOP was acknowledged by the two attorneys, but it is supposedly one entity behind the suit. They are still playing mum about who else.

Surprised who has the money to finance a possibly very expense lawsuit. I'd love to know who's paying their bill. The law firm could be doing it for the media exposure, too, I guess.

 

[Warhawk]

STOP was acknowledged by the two attorneys, but it is supposed,ly one entity behind the suit. They are still playing mum about who else.

Surprised who has the money to finance a possible very expense lawsuit. I'd love to know who's paying their bill. The law firm could be doing it for the media exposure, too, I guess.

They did get what, $15,000 from Sandy Sheedy? That would be a start.

 

[kennadog]

They did get what, $15,000 from Sandy Sheedy? That would be a start.

Peanuts on a case like this. Maybe the lawyers are true believers. Ugh.