|
Post by bigfan on Jun 9, 2019 18:12:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Jun 9, 2019 18:17:36 GMT -5
New charge in Luke Walton lawsuit: Lakers, Warriors, NBA could be named defendants The woman suing Sacramento Kings coach Luke Walton for sexual assault added a new complaint to her lawsuit Wednesday, a move that points to the possibility of the NBA and two of its most popular teams being named as co-defendants, a legal analyst said. According to Los Angeles County court records, attorneys representing former Southern California sports broadcaster Kelli Tennant amended their suit filed Wednesday to allege negligence, a seventh complaint in the suit originally filed April 22. The amended complaint alleges that “all defendants” negligently breached a “duty of due care,” exposing Tennant to personal, physical and emotional damages. www.sacbee.com/sports/nba/sacramento-kings/article231279398.html
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jun 9, 2019 18:52:20 GMT -5
"Attorneys are generally looking for deep pockets, he told the Sacramento Bee. 'They want to go after people who have the most money, and that's probably not Luke Walton"
Lets see Walton was born wealthy, made 34 million as a player, another 20 mill with the Lakers, and now has a multimillion dollar a year job. But yes, the primary reason to pull in the teams and the NBA is because otherwise Kelli cant get enough money
Wow journalists are f'n dumb. You add negligence here because it facilitates a positive verdict with less evidence - which the Bee does mention but buries - and it makes it easy to get in evidence of other women Luke may have done the same thing to. Thats the headline if the teams and the league are pulled in. "Bob Myers did you or did you not receive a complaint from Woman X that Luke was innapropriate with her while he was asst. coach of the Warriors?"
Having teams and the league involved may also facilitate a settlement, but a 1L couldnt miss the other women angle to this.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Jun 9, 2019 20:17:37 GMT -5
This is probably about the EPLI insurance policies held by the NBA, Lakers and Warriors. Those policies would pay if the claims adjuster (or courts) find that those policy holders knew about the issue and didn't take action after learning of it. There are no deeper pockets than AIG, Chubb, and other underwriters of management liability policies.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Jun 10, 2019 13:13:28 GMT -5
" Having teams and the league involved may also facilitate a settlement............ I wonder if she realizes that no will ever hire again in any kind of media job?
|
|
|
Post by hustleslowly on Jun 10, 2019 14:46:32 GMT -5
" Having teams and the league involved may also facilitate a settlement............ I wonder if she realizes that no will ever hire again in any kind of media job? If the allegations are true, then it shouldn't matter as anyone shouldn't have to endure what she went through.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 10, 2019 14:53:47 GMT -5
"Attorneys are generally looking for deep pockets, he told the Sacramento Bee. 'They want to go after people who have the most money, and that's probably not Luke Walton" Lets see Walton was born wealthy, made 34 million as a player, another 20 mill with the Lakers, and now has a multimillion dollar a year job. But yes, the primary reason to pull in the teams and the NBA is because otherwise Kelli cant get enough money Wow journalists are f'n dumb. You add negligence here because it facilitates a positive verdict with less evidence - which the Bee does mention but buries - and it makes it easy to get in evidence of other women Luke may have done the same thing to. Thats the headline if the teams and the league are pulled in. "Bob Myers did you or did you not receive a complaint from Woman X that Luke was innapropriate with her while he was asst. coach of the Warriors?" Having teams and the league involved may also facilitate a settlement, but a 1L couldnt miss the other women angle to this. That was someone's quote, not the opinion of the author. And it's not entirely true that it would aid a finding of negligence. Suing another party doesn't make it easier to introduce evidence against Walton--a subpoena to those parties would do the trick. Deep pockets is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by 405LAX on Jun 10, 2019 15:27:08 GMT -5
" Having teams and the league involved may also facilitate a settlement............ I wonder if she realizes that no will ever hire again in any kind of media job? She won't need a job is she gets her desired payoff.
|
|
|
Post by goldengirlsx3 on Jun 10, 2019 15:43:48 GMT -5
I wonder if she realizes that no will ever hire again in any kind of media job? If the allegations are true, then it shouldn't matter as anyone shouldn't have to endure what she went through. [br Wonderful response Hustle!!! 🙌🙌🙌
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jun 10, 2019 16:42:43 GMT -5
"Attorneys are generally looking for deep pockets, he told the Sacramento Bee. 'They want to go after people who have the most money, and that's probably not Luke Walton" Lets see Walton was born wealthy, made 34 million as a player, another 20 mill with the Lakers, and now has a multimillion dollar a year job. But yes, the primary reason to pull in the teams and the NBA is because otherwise Kelli cant get enough money Wow journalists are f'n dumb. You add negligence here because it facilitates a positive verdict with less evidence - which the Bee does mention but buries - and it makes it easy to get in evidence of other women Luke may have done the same thing to. Thats the headline if the teams and the league are pulled in. "Bob Myers did you or did you not receive a complaint from Woman X that Luke was innapropriate with her while he was asst. coach of the Warriors?" Having teams and the league involved may also facilitate a settlement, but a 1L couldnt miss the other women angle to this. That was someone's quote, not the opinion of the author. And it's not entirely true that it would aid a finding of negligence. Suing another party doesn't make it easier to introduce evidence against Walton--a subpoena to those parties would do the trick. Deep pockets is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. Negligence is the key word in this problem, if ANYONE at all knew that Walton had done these things, or like I speculated before that they had a prior romantic/sexual relationship and someone knew, then more lawyers and employers will have to be involved. Penn State, Baylor, Michigan State, etc.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Jun 10, 2019 17:10:13 GMT -5
I wonder if she realizes that no will ever hire again in any kind of media job? She won't need a job is she gets her desired payoff. It is all about getting paid.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 10, 2019 17:38:43 GMT -5
That was someone's quote, not the opinion of the author. And it's not entirely true that it would aid a finding of negligence. Suing another party doesn't make it easier to introduce evidence against Walton--a subpoena to those parties would do the trick. Deep pockets is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. Negligence is the key word in this problem, if ANYONE at all knew that Walton had done these things, or like I speculated before that they had a prior romantic/sexual relationship and someone knew, then more lawyers and employers will have to be involved. Penn State, Baylor, Michigan State, etc. If I understand the circumstances correctly, they were at least acquaintances, and she went to his room. That isn't a strong case for negligence on someone else's part. If they had a romantic relationship, that's an even weaker case of negligence.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jun 10, 2019 23:13:17 GMT -5
"Attorneys are generally looking for deep pockets, he told the Sacramento Bee. 'They want to go after people who have the most money, and that's probably not Luke Walton" Lets see Walton was born wealthy, made 34 million as a player, another 20 mill with the Lakers, and now has a multimillion dollar a year job. But yes, the primary reason to pull in the teams and the NBA is because otherwise Kelli cant get enough money Wow journalists are f'n dumb. You add negligence here because it facilitates a positive verdict with less evidence - which the Bee does mention but buries - and it makes it easy to get in evidence of other women Luke may have done the same thing to. Thats the headline if the teams and the league are pulled in. "Bob Myers did you or did you not receive a complaint from Woman X that Luke was innapropriate with her while he was asst. coach of the Warriors?" Having teams and the league involved may also facilitate a settlement, but a 1L couldnt miss the other women angle to this. That was someone's quote, not the opinion of the author. And it's not entirely true that it would aid a finding of negligence. Suing another party doesn't make it easier to introduce evidence against Walton--a subpoena to those parties would do the trick. Deep pockets is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. It was someone's quote presented in a featured place and not questioned at all Suing another party does make it easier to introduce evidence, thats how introducing evidence works. Thats also relevant in discovery. As other defendants are added the probative/prejudicial balance, as well as other evidentiary rules, apply differently.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 10, 2019 23:29:05 GMT -5
That was someone's quote, not the opinion of the author. And it's not entirely true that it would aid a finding of negligence. Suing another party doesn't make it easier to introduce evidence against Walton--a subpoena to those parties would do the trick. Deep pockets is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. It was someone's quote presented in a featured place and not questioned at all Suing another party does make it easier to introduce evidence, thats how introducing evidence works. Thats also relevant in discovery. As other defendants are added the probative/prejudicial balance, as well as other evidentiary rules, apply differently. It was a quote that reflected the opinion of the person who made it. The idea that failing to "question" that particular quote was some sort of journalistic failure is ridiculous. This isn't some grand tactical scheme about evidence or discovery. The effect on the introduction of evidence, or on discovery, is negligible at this point. Those other entities either knew something relevant, or didn't and the plaintiff's lawyers would find that out easily enough, either through discovery with Walton or from those entities, whether they were named parties in the suit or not. The explanation for adding them now is simple: they have deeper pockets.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jun 11, 2019 2:45:00 GMT -5
It was someone's quote presented in a featured place and not questioned at all Suing another party does make it easier to introduce evidence, thats how introducing evidence works. Thats also relevant in discovery. As other defendants are added the probative/prejudicial balance, as well as other evidentiary rules, apply differently. It was a quote that reflected the opinion of the person who made it. The idea that failing to "question" that particular quote was some sort of journalistic failure is ridiculous. This isn't some grand tactical scheme about evidence or discovery. The effect on the introduction of evidence, or on discovery, is negligible at this point. Those other entities either knew something relevant, or didn't and the plaintiff's lawyers would find that out easily enough, either through discovery with Walton or from those entities, whether they were named parties in the suit or not. The explanation for adding them now is simple: they have deeper pockets. A failure to be skeptical is always a failing in a journalist and if a single rationale for an act is presented and presented without skepticism, that rationale is effectively endorsed. Lets say that there is a woman who made an assault or harassment allegation to someone at the Lakers against Luke previously. The previous accuser isn't willing to testify or maybe she is. How does that evidence come in if its only a case against Luke?
|
|