Raiders seek to reinstate $1.2 billion suit against NFL

[oaklandhater]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ed=rss.bayarea

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, April 3, 2007


(04-03) 12:08 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The Oakland Raiders will be looking to snap a legal losing streak Wednesday when they ask the state Supreme Court to reinstate a $1.2 billion suit that accuses the National Football League of forcing the team out of Los Angeles in 1995 by sabotaging plans for a new stadium.

The court's ruling, due in 90 days, isn't likely to affect the team's location -- its lease in Oakland runs through 2011, and the Raiders and the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority have expressed interest in negotiating an extension.

But the verdict could resolve Raider headman Al Davis' long-standing claim that his plans to keep the team in the larger and more lucrative Southern California market were undermined by league officials' ill-will toward him.

The Raiders moved from Oakland to Los Angeles in 1982 after winning an antitrust suit against the NFL, which opposed the shift. They returned to Oakland in 1995 after trying to relocate from the cavernous Los Angeles Coliseum to a planned new stadium at Hollywood Park in suburban Inglewood, which was never built.

A separate legal dispute with Oakland authorities began two years later, when city and county officials accused the team of trying to break its lease and the Raiders countersued for fraud, claiming they had been misled about advance ticket sales.

The Raiders sought $833 million in that suit, but a Sacramento jury awarded them only $34.2 million, and a state appeals court wiped out those damages in November. The court said the team had waived its right to sue when it negotiated a new contract with the Oakland Coliseum in 1996 after learning the truth about slow ticket sales.

In the case to be heard by the high court Wednesday in Los Angeles, the Raiders claimed that the NFL caused the Hollywood Park negotiations to fail by insisting on unacceptable conditions, including a requirement that the Raiders share the stadium with another team.

The lawsuit sought $500 million in damages for the failure of the stadium deal and $700 million for the right to put a new team in Los Angeles, which has not had an NFL franchise since 1995.

After a 10-week trial, which included five days of testimony by Davis, a Los Angeles jury issued a 9-3 verdict in 2001 finding no wrongdoing by the NFL. But Superior Court Judge Richard Hubbell granted the Raiders a new trial in 2002, finding jury misconduct.

According to juror declarations submitted by the Raiders, one panel member said during deliberations that he hated Davis and the team, and would never award them damages, because he once lost a bet on them. Another juror, a lawyer, told her fellow panelists about the legal rules they had to follow in a way that differed from the judge's instructions, the Raiders said.

The first juror said in a declaration that he had only been joking to ease tensions in the jury room, and the second juror denied giving legal instructions to others. Hubbell did not specify which actions were misconduct.

His ruling was overturned in June 2005 by a state appeals court, which said the Raiders had failed to show that either juror did anything wrong. The court quoted several jurors as saying they had never heard any expression of bias from the juror who supposedly hated the Raiders. The second juror's denials were supported by other jury members, the court said.

"When faced with such conflicting evidence, courts generally deny motions for a new trial,'' because the losing side in the case has the burden of proving that the jury verdict should be set aside, the three-judge panel said.

But the Raiders' lawyers said conflicts in the evidence must be resolved by the trial judge rather than by an appellate court, which reviewed only a written record.

"There is substantial evidence of egregious and prejudicial juror misconduct,'' the team's attorneys said in written arguments to the state Supreme Court. They said only Hubbell, the trial judge, could determine who was telling the truth -- the juror who said he was joking about hating the Raiders, or other jurors who said it didn't appear to be a joke.

Lawyers for the NFL countered that Hubbell's failure to specify the juror misconduct prevented any meaningful review of his ruling by a higher court and justified the appellate panel's reinstatement of the jury verdict. The Raiders' lawyers replied that the high court, if it has any doubts, should return the case to Hubbell to clarify his ruling.

The case is Oakland Raiders vs. National Football League, S132814.

[StcChief]

Al Davis needs to kick....

[oaklandhater]

Al Davis needs to kick the bucket.

[morphius]

I swear Al must be senile.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Al, you reeruned, Members-Only jacket wearing jackass......

Give it up already.

[Bowser]

Al has a 99 in dipshittery on Madden.

[FAX]

You go Darth Liberace The Elder.

FAX

[morphius]

Originally Posted by Bowser

Al has a 99 in dipshittery on Madden.

Madden wouldn't do that, he would get sued...

[boogblaster]

Al sucks d..k ....

[Crashride]

Originally Posted by Bowser

Al has a 99 in dipshittery on Madden.

Actually they give out 100 ratings now. He deserves this new feature. Maybe if he asks ea like hester

[orange]

Originally Posted by Bowser

Al has a 99 in dipshittery on Madden.

Originally Posted by morphius

Madden wouldn't do that, he would get sued...

Madden wouldn't do it because he absolutely loves Al Davis. Are there people here who actually don't know that?

God, I feel old!

[Hammock Parties]

Just die already.

[Mojo Rising]

I hope he lives forever because the Raiders will be at the bottom of the division/league until then.