Comments on: New England Organized Crime? http://fightthehypo.com/2008/02/18/new-england-organized-crime/ a law student blog written by students at the catholic university of america, columbus school of law ::fighting the hypo, so you don't have to:: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:21:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Can A Fan Sue When His Team Loses On Purpose? at Fight The Hypo http://fightthehypo.com/2008/02/18/new-england-organized-crime/comment-page-1/#comment-97 Can A Fan Sue When His Team Loses On Purpose? at Fight The Hypo Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:02:22 +0000 http://fightthehypo.com/2008/02/18/new-england-organized-crime/#comment-97 [...] those seeking to use the courts to hold the Cheatriots accountable for their racketeering have chickened [...] [...] those seeking to use the courts to hold the Cheatriots accountable for their racketeering have chickened [...]

]]> By: Casebook Sherpa http://fightthehypo.com/2008/02/18/new-england-organized-crime/comment-page-1/#comment-48 Casebook Sherpa Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:48:22 +0000 http://fightthehypo.com/2008/02/18/new-england-organized-crime/#comment-48 Other than the sheer glee provided by the mere thought of Belicheck standing on the courthouse steps in his cutoff sweatshirt, a few thoughts: 1). How on earth to do you find causation here? I'm sure their only hope is to get in front of a jury. Even then, it's hard to not appear to be anything but sore losers. 2). Where are the gamblers? Don't they have a cause of action here? Surely those who wagered through legal sports books have an interest in this litigation. 3). This complaint is terribly written. Essentially the entire thing rests on Paragraph 25 which discusses the Boston Herald's quoting an anonymous source. That's hardly the stuff of which post-Twombly sufficiency in a class action suit is made. 4). What do you make of paragraph 41: "During a 'walk-through,' an opposing team could videotape not only plays but also coaches [sic] signals"? Does that speak to what goes on at a walk-through or what the league's rules allowed at the time? Most of the complaint talks about "fraudulent videotaping." I suspect this is simply poor drafting (maybe poor reading on my part too). But if the rules allowed taping of walk-throughs, what exactly constitutes "fraudulent videotaping"? 5). It sure is nice of these kind people to go out on a limb to get ticket money back to the fans. It's about time someone stuck up for them. I sure am glad that someone's watching out for their interests and they will each get their $400 (at least) back for each ticket they purchased. HA! Other than the sheer glee provided by the mere thought of Belicheck standing on the courthouse steps in his cutoff sweatshirt, a few thoughts:

1). How on earth to do you find causation here? I’m sure their only hope is to get in front of a jury. Even then, it’s hard to not appear to be anything but sore losers.

2). Where are the gamblers? Don’t they have a cause of action here? Surely those who wagered through legal sports books have an interest in this litigation.

3). This complaint is terribly written. Essentially the entire thing rests on Paragraph 25 which discusses the Boston Herald’s quoting an anonymous source. That’s hardly the stuff of which post-Twombly sufficiency in a class action suit is made.

4). What do you make of paragraph 41: “During a ‘walk-through,’ an opposing team could videotape not only plays but also coaches [sic] signals”? Does that speak to what goes on at a walk-through or what the league’s rules allowed at the time? Most of the complaint talks about “fraudulent videotaping.” I suspect this is simply poor drafting (maybe poor reading on my part too). But if the rules allowed taping of walk-throughs, what exactly constitutes “fraudulent videotaping”?

5). It sure is nice of these kind people to go out on a limb to get ticket money back to the fans. It’s about time someone stuck up for them. I sure am glad that someone’s watching out for their interests and they will each get their $400 (at least) back for each ticket they purchased. HA!

]]>