What happened to the Stand for San Jose case?

I really should check into these court cases more than once every couple weeks.

While many eyes will be focused on the City of San Jose’s Ninth Circuit appeal against Major League Baseball this Tuesday, another case appears to have been resolved. That would be “citizen group” Stand for San Jose’s lawsuit against the City in Santa Clara County Superior Court. A hearing was scheduled for the end of this week, August 15. However, that was wiped away as the court vacated the hearing. In fact, the court now has the case status as disposed as of July 24. In other words, the case is resolved, over, done. Big hat-tip to Wendy Thurm, who alerted me to this on Friday.

The only recent action leading up to that point was notice that the Oversight Board of SARA (Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency) would file its own motion to dismiss by July 25. The idea was that since the Oversight Board was given the power to dispose of the Diridon ballpark parcels however it saw fit as long as it took care of financial obligations to the state. That was to lead for a motion for pleadings on August 15. Then suddenly, the dismissal on July 24. It’s important to note that it’s a dismissal without prejudice, so it could come back at some point. Regardless, it’s a surprising move for all concerned. I’ve asked around to understand what happened, and haven’t gotten any answers yet.

Besides the legal maneuvering, one other thing has happened this summer that might have brought all parties to the table. That would be the A’s and the Coliseum JPA approving an extension at the Coliseum through at least 2018 (up to 2024). Obviously that’s speculation, and the filings may reveal something else, which is why I’m heading to Superior Court tomorrow afternoon. Be forewarned: I don’t expect to get much out of my inquiry. When cases are resolved in a non-public manner as this was, the parties can sometimes choose to reveal little about the motivations to do so.

Then again, there’s this update which came in on Friday:

081414

Some day all this legal stuff will end and there will be a ballpark under construction. Maybe.

37 thoughts on “What happened to the Stand for San Jose case?

  1. Mintz, who wrote the 8-10-14 Merc News story updating the SJ vs MLB lawsuit is even more of a Giants homer than Kawakami – “For more than four years, San Jose’s once-promising bid to lure the Oakland A’s to Silicon Valley has crashed as regularly as the team’s recent quests for a world series title” – what an A-hole. (Mintz forgets to mention that the A’s own four world series titles in 46 years – the giants have 2 titles in 56 years) Also “and while many legal experts consider San Jose’s odds about as good as the woeful Chicago Cubs winning a championship” – (SJ’s chances are likely much better than that) – Mintz’s story is likely even more wishful thinking by a Giants homer.

  2. Stand 4 SJ has no footing with SJ suing MLB in State and Federal courts.

    So the dismissal is no surprise as now MLB can no longer use this in their case vs. SJ, they have used this case in their arguments before.

    But a better explanation would be nice as I am just theorizing above.

    • It also could be that the Stand for San Jose lawsuit was ridiculous and made the Giants and MLB appear foolish. What else is puzzling is why Selig pressured the A’s and Oakland officials to agree to the 10 year lease before the SJ vs MLB case starts – MLB might believe that the lease could somehow help their case, San Jose’s chances may be better than the Mintz story suggests they are.

    • @Lakeshore/Neil: LOL

  3. Actually MLB had contended that the anti-trust suit would be moot if the option agreement was deemed invalid via the S4SJ lawsuit. That was their argument for not supporting an expedited case. Interesting development-

  4. Duffer, I don’t understand law very well, but most lawyers who have been following this, give it a very small chance of proceeding. I don’t think it’s just Mintz. In fact, some say the new lease hurts the case even more. That said, there have been some weird rulings lately, including the tv rights case the other day.

    • @Jordan: Many of these experts have been wrong about the case though. They predicted that the case wouldn’t receive standing (the state torts portion of the case has)And they believed that the 9th Circuit Court would not expedite the case (they proved to be wrong about that one also)

    • @jordan: Well, we will see what happens next. If SJ wins, what will MLB do? If SJ loses, will LW tell them to stop fighting because he is committed to Oakland now ? WIll SJ appeal to US Sup CT if they lose? Will MLB allow the case to go to US Sup CT ?

  5. So how does a lease that has an out agreement in 2018 impact a case that says MLB has blocked the A’s from relocating to San Jose? It’s obvious they have blocked it for whatever reason. Question is whether that’s within mlb’s jurisdiction given their ATE-

  6. SJ becomes a first-rate backup plan if the city wins its lawsuit. If SJ wins and Oakland refuses to turn over the Coliseum property to Wolff and continues its quest to accommodate the Raiders at the same site, SJ becomes THE plan. What are the odds of Oakland conceding it can’t accommodate the Raiders? Not very high. Don’t count SJ out.

  7. My gosh!!! Let’s just enjoy OUR OAKLAND A’S people. SJ looks like a no-go. Let’s unite as Oakland A’s fans!!

    • Brian, I appreciate the sentiment. But, that doesn’t mean that news shouldn’t be covered. Until there is an actual plan for anything, anywhere than everywhere is on the table and should be discussed/understood.

  8. I wonder if the S4SF suit was more of a hinderance to MLB then they expected. Imagine if SJ had a deposition to pierce this veiled lawsuit to show the Giants were tge mastermind behind it all thus further lending to the monopolistic practices of MLB. At any rate, all these new developements sure don’t seem to be just a coincidence…

  9. MLB is covering their asses. They will lose and will have to open their books and show by “rule of reason” why SJ has been locked out.

    S4SJ would have been brought up so MLB made the SF Giants drop it as it would show more collusion then there already is.

    Piazza holds weight and will pave the way. His case in the 9th circuit years ago gives SJ major standing.

    The expedite appeal signals it.

  10. Perhaps Selig shouldn’t have blown off the meeting with SJ Mayor Reed (mayor of the 10th largest city in the U.S., also that blow-off demonstrates what an arrogant goof Selig is) – it appears that move might have got Selig on Reed’s shit list The San Jose group is united, and with the Cotchett law firm in their corner – seems formidable and determined.

  11. In blowing off San Jose, MLB thought it could just dismiss the city as an insignificant suburb of Frisco. Now Selig and the Giants can tell the judges all about it.

  12. Everyone who wants the A’s to stay in the Bay Area should be rooting for San Jose to win this lawsuit because it gets two Bay Area cities vying for the team. If San Jose loses and Oakland won’t give the A’s the Coliseum property because it wants most of it for the Raiders, that leaves the A’s with no Bay Area ballpark options and it will be time to look outside the Bay Area and opn up bidding to cities like Portland, San Antonio, Sacramento, Montreal etc. As I’ve said years ago, San Jose losing doesn’t mean Oakland winning. Both could end up losing.

  13. SJ got there ass’es handed to them,0-2 so far when they appeal it would be called third strike straight down the plate, didn’t have a chance, point black period, no standing what so ever, grasping at straws to hold on too. Build in Oakland or Sell LEW

    • @k- sj didn’t lose smart guy. The judge broke up the case into two parts….federal and state. He allowed sj to fight it on two fronts instead of one.

      This was a major blow to mlb as they now have two moving lawsuits they have to fight. You wonder why MLB hasn’t had any comment since the appeal was granted and the case broken up into two?

      MLB is behind the 8-ball, the 9th circuit granting an expedited appeal is a very bad sign.

  14. If Lew can’t build in Oakland, nobody else will, either. There is no one willing to lose Big Money just to keep the team in Oakland. How much has the Clorox group bid to buy the team? $0.00 would be the correct number. Whoever wants to buy the team and build in Oakland will need more than $1 billion to do so. Probably double that amount if we’re talking about Howard Terminal.

  15. Reading this site’s Twitter feed, I kind of get the impression that Wendy Thurm is a Giants legal honk. While I appreciate her knowledge regarding the case, it seems slightly biased.

    Thank you ML for providing a sanctuary from the Giants hegemony over the Bay Area media.

    • @ franks a lot : slightly ? LOL

      I won’t say bad things about a woman but ….

      • One tweet from her especially irked me. She stated, “Cotchett: what’s at stake is the A’s right to move. Notice no one from A’s is here to echo that.”

        Well, Wendy, I’m no lawyer but aren’t the A’s a defendant in this very same case?

    • She was pretty spot on accurate, I watched the video and they questions pretty much everything SJ was trying to bring forward and it did seem like MLB layers really didn’t have to explain much and when they did the judges were sitting back listening. Jude called out SJ lawyers multi times, and the expressing (Rolling eyes, smirking, etc) where pretty much there not buying it.

  16. @pjk it will never be two city’s vying for the A’s check the fact check the history, Lew will only build in Oakland if hes forced to and I for one believe he might sell if he has to, or build up coli land make his money then sell. Facts prove Lew continues to lie and play Oakland if it wasn’t for Bud telling him to look at Oakland (his own words). He has meetings with Reid, he will exercise that option if he had the chance, he has had 10 years to talk with Oakland officials but hasn’t until now, so this sugar coated stuff is false, it’s still SJ for Lew has he has also said in recent interview so why trust this dude, unless you are a pro SJ person like many on this site you all want the A’s I can’t knock you but to say its better for SJ to win for Oakland come on now, be real

    • K: Wendy Thurm (a big time giants and attorney Kiker homer) has been 100% wrong about the SJ vs MLB case to this point – if she believes that the giants and MLB will win – that likely means San Jose will win.

      (Also, either Oakland or San Jose are good choices for the A’s new ballpark)

      • @duffer yea def know about the Giants homer thing, but what she was tweeting was what was being said from judges etc, I’m not agreeing with her comments on how she felt it went. I watched the whole thing and have my view.

        For new ballpark yes, just interesting if SJ looses its kinda like then what. As MLB will not favor SJ after a lawsuit, and if Lew stalls more on Oakland or Oakland pisses its chance away. I still believe no movement will be made by lew until the suit is over or the Commish tells him to build or sell. such as he openly admitted he pretty much got pressure from Bud to “look” at Oakland again, which I believe it was more direct than that. As this suit will hurt all the teams in MLB and not just one

      • @K the A’s building a new ballpark in Oakland is a defeat for the Giants anyways – the giants’ actual goal is to drive the A’s out of town. Watching the pro giants weenies getting worked up about the case is entertaining also. The SJ vs MLB case is far from over.

  17. @ K/pjk

    Pjk, I can’t say I agree with your thinking entirely here, although I get the point of your statement:
    “Everyone who wants the A’s to stay in the Bay Area should be rooting for San Jose to win this lawsuit because it gets two Bay Area cities vying for the team. If San Jose loses and Oakland won’t give the A’s the”
    If San Jose continues loses with the lawsuit, that does not mean it won’t altimetry have a chance to get the A’s, or have an opportunity to vie for them if Oakland can’t get is crap together, the only difference is they will have to vie for them on MLBs terms and not San Jose’s or Wollf’s.
    K, Totally agree with your line of thinking, I also find it a bit odd, that when a Pro, or even Oakland only supporter is clinging to an unrealistic hope, that its easily shot down a some sort of pipe-deem, or the person is not well informed, but we are continually told that (by some), San Jose lawsuit will rule the day and force MLB to give San Jose to the A’s, and not that it won’t happen, but it’s really unlikely.

  18. If this case does not make it to the Supreme Court, I think plan b needs to be Congress, it can’t be that hard to acquire a pocket senator or congressman. I know many here laughed at that notion when I first brought it up over a year ago. Still this chapter could get interesting if it goes that far.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s