February 14, 2006
Name War Continues
The City of Anaheim continues the effort to remove Los Angeles from the name of the Angels:
Attorney Michael Rubin said Monday the city's lawyers would make the request at a March 2 hearing before Superior Court Judge Peter Poulos.
Rubin said city officials believe they have a good chance of prevailing based on Poulos' previous rulings concerning language in a stadium lease agreement signed by officials with The Walt Disney Co. when it owned the team. The lease required that the word Anaheim be included in the name.
I guess I don't understand the law. Didn't the city just lose a trial? Didn't a jury of their peers say everything's okay? Isn't that supposed to be the end of things? As far as I can tell, this isn't an appeal. Would someone with some legal knowledge please fill us in on why Anaheim can make this plea?
Posted by David Pinto at
07:30 AM
|
Management
|
TrackBack (0)
Why don't they just get it over with and become the first team to not use a place name, but instead a corporate sponsor. Not to sound cynical, but I just know that day is coming.
"The Nike Angels" anyone?
There are any number of reasons for an appeal involving errors... the judge could have issued improper jury instructions (if they reached a verdict concerning irrelevant issues, their verdict shouldn't matter), the judge might have ruled incorrectly on critical motions during the trial, etc. I'll see if I can find the appeal and give you a better idea what it's based on.
