Nov 3, 2009, 8:55 AM EST
Jamie McCourt still wants to own the Dodgers, she just doesn’t want them filing legal briefs in which the team accuses her of cheating on her husband:
Jamie McCourt argued in a motion Monday that the Dodgers should not be a party in a divorce hearing, asking the court to throw out papers filed in the team’s name that “unnecessarily and gratuitously attack” her.
The motion is expected to be considered Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court as part of a hearing to determine the validity of McCourt’s demand for immediate reinstatement as the Dodgers’ chief executive.
I think she has a good point here, because if anyone should be allowed to “gratuitously attack” her for messing around with her bodyguard (or whatever he is), it shouldn’t be the Dodgers, who actually made the filing she’s complaining about. It should be her husband Frank, and so far he’s been missing from this affair. At least technically so. Fact is that the “Dodgers'” papers were written and filed by Frank’s own divorce lawyer, which means that Frank is trying to use the team’s good name to advance legal arguments he doesn’t necessarily want to make himself.
In reality, the Dodgers probably have a place in the lawsuit insofar as Jamie has asked to be reinstated, and the Dodgers, as an entity, probably have a right to say that they do not want to be forced to re-hire a terminated employee. They should not, however, be used as Frank’s sock puppet to accuse their former employee of being an unfaithful hussy who shouldn’t have her job back. If Frank wants to accuse his wife of stuff, he should man up and say it himself in his own legal papers. Businesses are generally well-advised to not publicly comment on the reasons why someone gets fired.
Bonus reason for kicking the Dodgers out of the suit: it will prevent these overpaid children from further dragging a once proud and respectable brand name into the muck.
- Yasmany Tomas signs a six-year, $68.5 million deal with the Diamondbacks 86
- No, the Red Sox signing Pablo and Hanley is not proof that baseball needs a salary cap 162
- Red Sox announce four-year, $88 million deal with Hanley Ramirez, DFA Juan Francisco 35
- The Cubs have offered Jon Lester “north of $135 million” 68
- Pablo Sandoval’s deal: five years, $98 million plus an option 43
- Kyle Seager, Mariners close to $100 million extension 26
- The 2015 Hall of Fame ballot is out — Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez are new on the ballot 286
- So what would the Red Sox look like with Hanley Ramirez and Pablo Sandoval? 49
- The 2015 Hall of Fame ballot is out — Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez are new on the ballot (286)
- No, the Red Sox signing Pablo and Hanley is not proof that baseball needs a salary cap (162)
- More Hall of Fame ballots like Adam Rubin’s please (140)
- Report: Pablo Sandoval chose the Red Sox over the Giants because he felt disrespected (137)
- UPDATE: The Pablo Sandoval-Red Sox deal is done, pending a physical (133)