No announcement yet.

Has the City of Anaheim decided not to appeal?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Has the City of Anaheim decided not to appeal?

    I haven't heard anything about it, but thought it was being said at the time that the City of Anaheim had two months to file their appeal. Well, it's been more than two months.

    Is there any chance of coming to some kind of deal that would allow the Angels to drop the "of Anaheim?"

  • #2
    There's no chance for the city to appeal.

    And now with the NFL entertaining a proposal to put another team in SoCal, the City Council said that they won't pressure the league not to call it "Los Angeles."

    Talk about a waste of money.
    "The future's uncertain and the end is always near" - Jim Morrison


    • #3
      The city is doing everything it can to screw itself out of a baseball team

      Anaheim is so highly principled that they appear willing to drop the appeal if Moreno decides to waive the $7 million in attorney's fees. Translated, it means they don't really think they can win this appeal. At least they'd better hope they can't if they want a team. Moreno should make a counter proposal that he will waive the attorney's fees if the City agrees not to appeal AND allows him to drop the "of Anaheim" from the name.

      BTW, it looks like that expert contract negotiator, Tony Tavares, is about to lose his job in Washington:

      From the Los Angeles Times
      Anaheim Considering an Appeal of Name Case
      By Bill Shaikin
      Times Staff Writer

      April 30, 2006

      The Anaheim City Council appears to be strongly considering an appeal of the city's defeat in its lawsuit against the Angels, raising the possibility that the fight over the team's name could return to court during the season.

      The city is believed to be willing to forgo an appeal if the Angels are willing to forgo the chance to recoup their legal costs. After an Orange County Superior Court jury found the Angels' addition of Los Angeles to their name did not violate their stadium lease, team owner Arte Moreno said he would ask the court to order the city to repay the approximately $7 million he spent on the Angels' defense.

      The two law firms representing Anaheim have billed the city for $3.6 million through March 27. Mayor Curt Pringle said the firms have offered to cap bills for an appeal at $150,000.

      "I think it's a smart move for us to move forward," Councilman Richard Chavez said. "I believe we still have a good case. Based on the cost of an appeal, it would be worth the effort."

      The council voted unanimously to file the lawsuit. Councilman Harry Sidhu said he would vote against an appeal.

      "The jury has spoken," Sidhu said. "The $150,000 we would spend on appealing would be a waste of taxpayers' money. I think we should move on and work with the Angels."

      The deadline for the city to appeal — and for the Angels to file the petition for reimbursement — is June 5.

      The City Council is not expected to decide on an appeal until after a May 12 court hearing, in which city attorneys will ask for revisions in the formal language that accompanied the verdict. The city claims the team could interpret portions of that language as a legal blessing to drop "of Anaheim" and sell themselves as the Los Angeles Angels.


      • #4
        Finally, somebody on that Council is making some sense over Mayor Pringle.

        Mayor Pringle at a recent public appearence.
        Attached Files


        • #5
          If the City of Anaheim agrees not to appeal and drop the "of Anaheim" from the name, I certainly wouldn't object to Moreno dropping the effort to recoup attorneys fees. Of course, it's easy to make these kinds of decisions with someone else's money.


          • #6
            Agree, John. Mayor Potato Chip is good at spending other people's money, so who knows what will happen.

            I still cannot belive somebody who is supposedly business friendly, like Pringle, a former Republican leader in the State Assembly, would use the government and the courts to thwart a private business.

            This new owner (Arte Moreno), has a much different vision for the club over the previous owners, especially Disney. All this has couse was bad blood between the city and the club, of which is most likely irreperable. The city could have signed on with Arte's vision (may not have agreed with the name situation, but they should have stepped asaide and agreed to some kind of concession), but chose to sue instead.


            • #7
              Will likely appeal, but won't if they don't have to pay Moreno's lawyers!

              From the Los Angeles Times
              Anaheim Council Is Likely to Appeal
              By Bill Shaikin
              Times Staff Writer

              May 28, 2006

              The Anaheim City Council is expected to vote Tuesday to appeal the city's defeat in its lawsuit against the Angels, a decision that could extend the court fight over the team's name into 2008.

              "I think we've been wronged," Councilman Bob Hernandez said.

              When the Angels added Los Angeles to their name last year, the city sued. In February, an Orange County Superior Court jury found the new name did not violate the stadium lease. By the time the appeals court rules, the Angels might have played three seasons under their new name.

              "It is likely this season and next season will be completed by the time there would be a decision," said Sheldon Eisenberg of the Santa Monica law firm Bryan Cave. He estimated that two-thirds of appeals are unsuccessful.

              Councilman Harry Sidhu said he would not vote to appeal but expects a majority of the five-member council to do so. Hernandez and Councilman Richard Chavez each said he would vote to appeal, barring an unexpected last-minute settlement offer. Councilwoman Lorri Galloway said she would not decide before hearing from city attorneys Tuesday. Mayor Curt Pringle did not return several messages.

              The lawyers representing Anaheim have billed the city $3.8 million through March 31, but Pringle has said they have offered to cap bills for an appeal at $150,000.

              "We've spent the money already," Hernandez said. "This is a small amount in comparison. It really makes sense."

              The city is believed to be willing to drop the appeal if the Angels do not pursue reimbursement of their legal bills. The court has yet to decide whether the city is liable for any or all of a tab that could exceed $7 million.

              "Just because we might have to pay $7 [million] to $8 million, we should go ahead and appeal? I think that's the wrong way to approach this," Sidhu said. "We should move on, rather than trying to create more friction. The city should be seeing the Angels as a partner."

              The Angels' stadium lease expires in 2016. In November, Angels owner Arte Moreno said, "If this gets put into appeals court, somewhere along the line you have to think about whether you're gone."

              In January, Pringle said, "I believe, if the name of the team stays [as Los Angeles], the Angels may very well not be here in 10 years anyway."

              In an appeal, according to Chavez and Hernandez, the city would claim in part that Judge Peter Polos erred by not ordering jurors to consider the intent of the parties in interpreting the lease.

              When Moreno bought the team from Walt Disney Co., he inherited a lease that requires the team name to "include the name Anaheim therein." The lead lease negotiators for Anaheim and Disney each testified the language was not intended to allow the addition of another city to the name. A Disney executive involved in negotiations testified he had considered that possibility, although he said he could not recall telling that to city representatives.


              Ad Widget