JD suing Stanford

[SoCalDukeFan]

link (http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/18/former-basketball-coach-johnny-dawkins-sues-stanford-for-millions/)

I gotta think both sides had competent lawyers involved so it seems a little strange to me.

SoCal

[YmoBeThere]

If cases can be decided by Oxford commas or not, what is there to lose?

[Jeffrey]

link (http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/18/former-basketball-coach-johnny-dawkins-sues-stanford-for-millions/)

I gotta think both sides had competent lawyers involved so it seems a little strange to me.

SoCal

Probably not a great LT career move. Johnny may have concluded he will never coach in an elite program again.

[OldPhiKap]

Probably not a great LT career move. Johnny may have concluded he will never coach in an elite program again.

I'm guessing that it's a last resort, for the reasons you mention.

I guess the flip side is, if he really did get screwed, standing up for his rights probably doesn't hurt him in the long run. A non-frivolous suit is not much of a blemish it seems to me.

Love me some JD, hate that it has come to this.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I'm guessing that it's a last resort, for the reasons you mention.

I guess the flip side is, if he really did get screwed, standing up for his rights probably doesn't hurt him in the long run. A non-frivolous suit is not much of a blemish it seems to me.

Love me some JD, hate that it has come to this.

JD is a smart, successful guy. I'm sure he evaluated the situation closely and realized that Stanford has plenty of money to lawyer up on this, so he thinks his odds of winning are pretty good. It is a pretty significant amount of money he is asking for, and I think he already has enough in the bank to live comfortably.

I don't know what standard offset language is in coaching contracts but that seems to be the question. This might make some schools a bit hesitant to hire him, but not many. Regardless, JD is 53 years old. Other than the Duke job (for which most would agree he is not a top candidate) he likely would rather not move again, unless he is forced to - I don't think he is looking to move back up the coaching totem pole. My guess is that at this point in his life and career, if he does have to look for a new job again, if a school decides to hold this against him, he will say to heck with them and move on.

[TKG]

A JD suing someone? There has got to be lawyer humor in there somewhere.

[Olympic Fan]

Probably not a great LT career move. Johnny may have concluded he will never coach in an elite program again.

Not sure that's true ... he may have taken the first steps towards a career revival this season, inheriting three starters off a 12-18 team and finishing 24-12 (NIT runnerup). It's just a first step, but another few seasons like that and he'll get another chance at a higher profile school.

[BD80]

A JD suing someone? There has got to be lawyer humor in there somewhere.

Fine, joke about a JD from Duke and it's all fun and games.

But say ANYTHING about a Duke MBA, and watch out!

[duke79]

From the limited facts in that newspaper story, it sounds like JD is alleging that, when he got fired by Stanford, they (he and Stanford) agreed that Stanford would waive the mitigation clause (allowing them to offset their damages to JD if he got another coaching job, by the amount of his new salary) in return for JD agreeing not to pursue other claims against Stanford (no clue what those may have been?). Now, JD is maintaining that Stanford DID offset what they owed to him by the amount of his new coaching salary. Am I correct in my reading of the facts alleged in the story? If that is the case, it sounds like Stanford is "double dealing" here and JD SHOULD sue them for what he is rightfully owed (although it sounds like he is making other claims too, but I chalk that up to the lawyers seeking to get some leverage in the suit). Of course, in my previous life as a lawyer, I found out that there are ALWAYS two sides to these sorts of disputes. I have no clue what Stanford's defense may be.

[Jeffrey]

But say ANYTHING about a Duke MBA, and watch out!

Why do you say that? Just yesterday, a Duke MBA basically stated they learned nothing about investing.

[Natty_B]

Not sure that's true ... he may have taken the first steps towards a career revival this season, inheriting three starters off a 12-18 team and finishing 24-12 (NIT runnerup). It's just a first step, but another few seasons like that and he'll get another chance at a higher profile school.

UCF wasn't runner-up but did make NIT Final Four and as a UCF grad I can tell you this was pretty exciting. Johnny (the first Duke player - hell basketball player I ever loved) might want to stick around. The AD (son of Duke's) seems to know what he's doing and well who doesn't love a lazy river!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/one-schools-formula-for-athletic-success-build-a-lazy-river-and-hope-the-recruits-will-come/2017/03/31/e1b7f5c8-1568-11e7-833c-503e1f6394c9_story.html?utm_term=.ffb81fa7cc55

[JetpackJesus]

From the limited facts in that newspaper story, it sounds like JD is alleging that, when he got fired by Stanford, they (he and Stanford) agreed that Stanford would waive the mitigation clause (allowing them to offset their damages to JD if he got another coaching job, by the amount of his new salary) in return for JD agreeing not to pursue other claims against Stanford (no clue what those may have been?). Now, JD is maintaining that Stanford DID offset what they owed to him by the amount of his new coaching salary. Am I correct in my reading of the facts alleged in the story? If that is the case, it sounds like Stanford is "double dealing" here and JD SHOULD sue them for what he is rightfully owed (although it sounds like he is making other claims too, but I chalk that up to the lawyers seeking to get some leverage in the suit). Of course, in my previous life as a lawyer, I found out that there are ALWAYS two sides to these sorts of disputes. I have no clue what Stanford's defense may be.

In my current life as a lawyer, that is how I read the article. Basically, JD and Stanford entered into a settlement agreement upon his termination. If that agreement is in writing and says what JD alleges it says, Stanford will be in trouble if they did not pay him the $2.3 million. Stanford's fight will be over the punitive damages aspect, which actually makes up the bulk of JD's damages total.

Assuming the facts are true as alleged, I'd expect a confidential settlement where JD receives the balance of the $2.3 million owed plus a little extra on top.

[53n206]

In my current life as a lawyer, that is how I read the article. Basically, JD and Stanford entered into a settlement agreement upon his termination. If that agreement is in writing and says what JD alleges it says, Stanford will be in trouble if they did not pay him the $2.3 million. Stanford's fight will be over the punitive damages aspect, which actually makes up the bulk of JD's damages total.

Assuming the facts are true as alleged, I'd expect a confidential settlement where JD receives the balance of the $2.3 million owed plus a little extra on top.

Plus legal fees I assume.