Skip to content

What I’d do to mess with the Dodgers if I were Jamie McCourt’s lawyer

Dec 7, 2010, 1:59 PM EDT

McCourt Divorce Trial Continues With Ownership Of Dodgers In Contention Getty Images

I’m still processing the ruling in the McCourt case. One thought occurred to me, however: if I were Jamie McCourt’s lawyer I’d make a point to screw with the Dodgers, starting today, in order to force a favorable settlement.

The judge just issued a ruling that Jamie has an ownership interest in the Dodgers. It’s not actually full ownership yet — the team is merely now presumed to be community property — but she has a much greater interest in the team today than she did under the once-presumed-valid post-nuptial agreement. In light of this, she should try to protect her interest.

How? Oh, by maybe filing for a temporary restraining order preventing the Dodgers from making substantial expenditures without court approval until the case is ultimately resolved.  Make the argument — with tons of purple prose — in which she says that it is now winter, teams hand out millions of dollars in contracts in the winter, and the very future of the Dodgers is at stake. A contract could be signed tomorrow that simply kills the team (see, Rodriguez, Alex)!  Please, judge, do not let Frank do this to OUR asset! Make him take all potential contract offers to you so that you can approve them!

Even if it’s unsuccessful, you could make the pleading up in such a way so that it would play like gangbusters in the press. Frank and Ned Colletti would have to answer questions about it. People would wonder if the team would be able to do anything without 50 lawyers getting involved. It would be a glorious thing. At least that’s what my vestigial lawyer’s evil conscience thinks at the moment. And hey, it could make Frank offer a really favorable settlement to Jamie.

Now, keep in mind that I’m operating from ignorance right now in that we haven’t seen the judge’s actual order. It may preempt all of this and put in place a plan of interim management pending the outcome of the case.  But if it doesn’t, and if it’s a plain jane order in Jamie’s favor, I’d run down to the courthouse and start making Frank McCourt’s life miserable. Like, ten minutes ago.

  1. mcsnide - Dec 7, 2010 at 2:15 PM

    When I saw the SI headline in my RSS feed, my first thought was, “Wonder what Calcaterra thinks.” And sure enough, you’d already told us. Bottom line, regardless of how the order was worded, this pretty much means the McCourts will have to sell the Dodgers (assuming they can’t work together to run the team, which seems like a valid assumption), correct?

    Wonder if Cuban has already made an offer.

  2. Space Escalator - Dec 7, 2010 at 2:15 PM

    Speaking of miserable… Wouldn’t like to be the lawyer responsible for the changes in the pre-nup right about now.

  3. Old Gator - Dec 7, 2010 at 2:16 PM

    Vestigial!?

    Harff, harff, harff….

  4. IdahoMariner - Dec 7, 2010 at 2:32 PM

    I have nothing constructive to add…I just want to say that these two have the most unattractive mouths I have seen in a long time. Like gaping fish. Nasty.

  5. Jonny 5 - Dec 7, 2010 at 2:38 PM

    She needs to order pink Dodgers uniforms like yesterday. How cool would that be??? Imagine it.. Padilla, pretty in pink… Or Broxton…

  6. hep3 - Dec 7, 2010 at 2:47 PM

    Somehow I think Jamie has been making life miserable for some man or another for fifty some years.

  7. clydeserra - Dec 7, 2010 at 3:17 PM

    the judge would have to grant the injunction after the Barajas deal

  8. apbaguy - Dec 7, 2010 at 3:38 PM

    Now that’s funny!

  9. iranuke - Dec 7, 2010 at 3:55 PM

    At 100 pages, it can’t be a “Plain Jane” order, can it?

    • Old Gator - Dec 7, 2010 at 4:17 PM

      Why not? Even the Titanic had pretty thick boilerplate.

  10. craigbhill - Dec 8, 2010 at 4:07 PM

    No, Craig, no, no, no. We WANT McCourt on the hook for $150 million. Anything to keep him in hock so he has to sell. We DON’T want the Dodgers to stop spending on actual talent. What side are you on anyway??

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Pitching duel highlights Game 1 of WS
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. T. Ishikawa (2639)
  2. M. Bumgarner (2629)
  3. J. Shields (2319)
  4. Y. Molina (1999)
  5. L. Cain (1881)