Trinity East Is Suing the City of Dallas For Reneging on Fracking Leases [Updated]

east least.jpg
It's been six months since the Dallas City Council rejected applications from Trinity East Energy to drill for natural gas on city-owned land it had paid $19 million to lease five years earlier. But no one really expected that to be the end of the fight. The company had spent too much money to go down that easy. Besides, it had been assured that it would be allowed to drill, no matter that those assurances were made as part of a side deal orchestrated by then-City Manager Mary Suhm.

The news today that Trinity East is suing the city to recover tens of millions of dollars it says it lost in its attempt to drill on the city-owned plots, should surprise no one.

See also: Mary Suhm Signed a Secret Side Deal to Push for Drilling on Parkland as She Told Council It Would Be Banned

In the suit, Trinity East claims fraud, breach of contract and unconstitutional taking.

The deal, Trinity East says, was binding. Suhm was authorized to negotiate the lease by the City Council. On August 15, 2008, the same day that the lease was approved, the suit says that Suhm "signed a letter to Trinity officials stating that she was 'reasonably confident'" that the company would obtain the right to use all of the tracts included in the agreement for drilling operations.

Two pieces of land in particular were key to Trinity East's plans: the 22-acre "Radio Tower Tract," just west of the city-owned Luna Vista Golf Course and the Gun Club Tract near the Elm Fork gun range. Without that parcels to serve as drill sites, the company would be unable to tap into the natural gas trapped below thousands of additional acres leased from the city and private landowners.

Both sites were on land in the floodplain or defined as parkland, drilling on which is allowed under a revision of gas drilling rules passed by the City Council passed in September 2007, provided a company can obtain a specific use permit.

SUPs for both sites were guaranteed by Suhm and city staff, Trinity East argues, which is why it shelled out $19 million, then several million more surveying and prepping the sites.

"This is about a deal, plain and simple. We had a deal with the city of Dallas and they went back on it," says Trinity East president Stephen Fort. "The city made promises to us and took our money. They sold us minerals but then denied us the ability to extract them."

But Suhm didn't have the authority to guarantee that Trinity East would be allowed to drill. That was always up to the City Council, which has the final say over whether or not to grant any SUP. Shouldn't Trinity East have realized that it was taking a political gamble?

See also: Q&A with Trinity East Manager: Leases, Floodplains, and the Money Beneath Dallas

No, Fort tells Unfair Park. "This was a business transaction," he says.

Trinity East didn't come to the city asking to drill; the city issued a request for proposals, then called the company to make sure they wanted to bid. Throughout the extensive negotiations with city staff, it was always clear that they would be allowed to drill.

"What happens politically, or what happens with certain people protesting, that's really kind of irrelevant," Fort says. "This was about a deal we had, and the city backed out of it."

"We don't really like litigation," he added, "but we expect to be compensated."

Trinity East doesn't specify a dollar figure for the damages it's seeking from the city. There's the $19 million it paid for the lease and the more than $11 million spent on site prep. Then, there's the "hundreds of millions" Trinity East claims in lost profits.

Here's a copy of Trinity East's complaint:

Trinity East vs City of Dallas


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
137 comments
holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

By advertising their shale gas reserves the City appears to have run the old “show it to ‘em and take it away” trick.  But it looks like the City, under desperate financial pressure, then took the next step and ran a scam.  You see this a lot out in the private sector when companies are in financial trouble – or just greedy.

The City needed a hook to get the Pasty to bite and convey the filthy lucre.  And that would be okay had the City not promised the Patsy, in writing, it would do everything it could to get the deal done in order to get the Patsy’s money.  It took this inducement to get the Patsy off high center.

And herein lies the making of a sting.  The City did just the opposite – in public.  In the old days, the City would have quietly worked against the deal they made behind closed doors.  You know, like real crooks.

The swindle might have worked had the Head Honcho and the council made the “no problema” promise in good faith.  Then the City could assert that “see, our hands are tied”.

Unfortunately, the City has been caught lying to the Patsy to get the money.  The City left a paper trail.  And I really do hate that when it happens.  So did Madoff.

The Mayor says it was the City that was set up, by God!  The Patsy never had any intention of performing on the deal and was always going to sue, not only to get their seed money back but make money off the settlement.  Rawlings should have held up a baby or something.  Of course, that is for public consumption only.  I don’t think accusing the other side in court their heart was not pure when it is the swindle that is at issue.

Besides.  The City knows they might own a major asset in the ground.  If gas prices go to $11 again, no sense cutting a deal now.  Hell, we may need to run this scam again!

And that too would be okay, had the City not lied to get the money, then didn’t give it back when caught.

So the question becomes a tort – did we cheat ‘em fair and square?

Of course, that is now for the civil courts to decide.

Unless Mary Suhm takes the fifth.

Then, the plot thickens.

fracquestions
fracquestions

Having just read the lawsuit, it appears Trinity East just got screwed again, this time by its own attorneys. Those claims in the filing are so false and erroneous that they completely undermine Trinity East's case, and the City Attorney's Office is going to have a field day with this one.


There is no need to settle out of court. There is no way TE can prevail in this case unless judicial corruption prevails. Any first year law student could successfully defend against these false claims.


There never was a TPWD Chapter 26 hearing.


There never was an amendment removing drilling prohibitions from either parkland or floodplains.


There never was a guarantee or promise that Trinity East would be allowed to drill.


Lawyers can claim anything in a lawsuit that they choose to claim, but only the facts will prevail at trial. This one may well be thrown out by the judge before it ever gets to trial. This was a very poorly written lawsuit!

beau2am
beau2am

Suhm should just pay the money back out of her pocket.

-I mean, let's be "fair".

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

From the DMN story: At the end of August Mayor Mike Rawlings said in council chambers that he believed Trinity East wanted to have its permits denied, because it would make more money by suing the city rather than drilling the land.


That's the most insightful and likely correct comment I've seen on the whole matter.

markzero
markzero

"Reasonably confident" is not the same as "definitely."

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

Ok all you shitbirds who laughed and Nancy'd about sobbing with joy that we cheated them fair and square, and they could never find anyone but a slip 'n fall lawyer to file.

Let's hear you run your piehole now!

Winstead would not take this if they didn't think they could win it.

You dumbasses best come up with a Plan B argument fast because I am going to go back in time and commenced ta feeding you your nitwit bullshit (ha!).

Punks.

Now let's hear Plan 9 From Outer Space! The movie.

becoolerifyoudid
becoolerifyoudid

@beau2am Did Suhm keep the money or did the City?  If the City received $19M for a lease and kept the money, then the City ratified the contract.

Guesty
Guesty

@everlastingphelps  I'm sure that's true.  Production has been down in the area (immediately in and around the city, not Texas as a whole), and prices are terribly low.  I doubt TE would have even spent the money to drill a well.  It likely would not have had any return on its investment.  

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@markzero  

So, Mary Suhm was reasonably confident TE could obtain the right to use the tracts the same day she told the council in a briefing her office would help block it?  That there was no way TE could drill.

Winstead does not take cases on principle and they are self-funded.

Did she not agree, by letter on City letterhead, to lobby this deal?  Was it not the sole motivation for soliciting TE in the first place because the City badly needed new revenue sources?  And is that not the reason why TE agreed to the deal because she signed a letter pledging her office would facilitate a process she was "reasonably confident" they could obtain?

Then almost simultaneously she and her henchmen make public statements that directly contradict her written promise to help get the permits?  That, in fact, they would help block it?

And now we all get to tell it to a judge? 

I don't think it would matter what she promised then if she threw rocks, had she not been in a position of power and had the authority to enter a contract in the name of the city . . . 

but SHE'S THE CITY MANAGER FOR GOD'S SAKE!. in a weak mayor form of government.

She . . . THE CITY . . . entered a contract in Bad Faith for money and had no intention of performing on the contract.  Then refused to give the money back..

Do you sharpshooters really want to take this in front of a jury?

Guesty
Guesty

@holmantx  Their claim is shit, but that doesn't mean they couldn't find anyone but a slip and fall attorney.  As long as they are willing and able to pay Winstead's hourly rates, Winstead will happily take their money.  Winstead takes cases all the time that it can't win because they are paid to do it.  

becoolerifyoudid
becoolerifyoudid

@holmantx Read through the comments, there is a lot of denial.  I side with Phelps on the analysis of this one.  It's not a complicated story.


As for Winstead, they wouldn't take it on a contingency if they didn't think they would win, but I have no idea if they are being paid hourly, contingency, or a hybrid.

scottie1620
scottie1620

@holmantx @markzero  You start off well, but then you go off-track.


Many of us can attest to the fact that the City Manager, City Attorney's Office, Office of Sustainable Development and other city staffers worked their asses off trying to help TE get the necessary SUPs and drilling permits. No legitimate claim can be made that Mayor Leppert, Mayor Rawlings, City Manager Suhm, City Attorney Perkins and Sustainable Development Director O'Donnell failed to make every reasonable (plus many unreasonable) effort on behalf of TE.


The City of Dallas cannot be held liable for doing due diligence and making decisions that it is authorized to make under law for protection of its citizens.


Yes, we DO want to get this in front of a judge! The legal facts stand as a strong defense of the city. And this time the City Attorney will be defending the city rather than TE. I can assure you they will present the documents that none of us have yet seen, as well as the ones we have seen, that prove there never was a "promise" of a right to drill.


TE just pissed away even more money on top of what they already gambled and lost. They are now betting the city will settle out of court rather than fighting them, but I think they are wrong. The Council has already been briefed by an outside oil and gas attorney who told them they have a 50/50 chance of losing, and if they lose, then the city would likely be liable for no more than $1-2 Million - far less than what TE is seeking.


Let's get this party started! I plan on wearing my tuxedo (T-shirt) to court for the proceedings.

Guesty
Guesty

@holmantx @markzero  "Winstead does not take cases on principle and they are self-funded."  Winstead doesn't really care if the claim has merit or not, it will get paid either way.  I don't think this case is on a contingency.


Bottom line, you can't sue a city for a deal that isn't in the form of a written contract approved by the City Council.  The claim is borderline frivolous. Trinity East and its attorneys know damn well that Shum can't enter into any verbal contract on behalf of the City of Dallas to change the law.  If it needed a guarantee that the law would be changed, it needed to get that included in the written contract and have it approved by the City Council.

Guesty
Guesty

@becoolerifyoudid @holmantx  "wouldn't take it on a contingency" who said it was on contingency?  


People also seem to have no idea how even contingency lawyers work.  Even if Winstead thinks there is only a 10% chance of winning, they would take this case on a 40% contingency.  4% of $19 million is $760,000, and they would also get an award of attorney's fees.   

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@becoolerifyoudid @holmantx  

TE doesn't have a pot to piss in.  I was hoping they'd fade to black or get bought out.

Back then Suhm emancipated over 800 City wage slaves (fired or furloughed employees) and the City was way in the red.  At the council's urging, she saw quick money and sought TE (and others) out.  They didn't solicit the City's biz.

She cut a deal in Bad Faith and all these morons on this board know it.  In fact they laughed.

Like I said at the time, just give them the dam money back.  But nooooooooooo.  We cheated 'em fair and square.

So today we all got served and what do we have on the frontpage of Unfair Park?

A politician with a fist full of rubbers in his hand.

wonderful.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@holmantx

oh, the letter on Trinity East letterhead that states Trinity East is aware of the need for a permit in order to extract the minerals, and there are "no guarantess" Trinity East will be granted the permit?

you are right, it does get worse.... for Trinity East to prove they were not fully informed or were unaware of the risk they took entering into the Lease.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@scottie1620 @holmantx @markzero  

"there never was a "promise" of a right to drill."

That is not at issue.  It is irrelevant.  The subsequent due diligence efforts by the City is also irrelevant.

This is what is at issue: Documents released yesterday evening by the city reveal that Dallas City Manager Mary Suhm signed a side deal with a gas-drilling company five years ago to help the company win drilling rights on city parkland, even though she had assured the City Council and park board that drilling on parkland would be banned." - By Jim Schutze Thu., Feb. 7 2013

BAM!

"Some of the timing is breathtaking. Suhm signed the deal with Trinity East six months after her own staff had assured the council that "there will be no drilling on the surface of city of Dallas parkland." But the deal states Suhm and her staff were "reasonably confident" they would be able to get Trinity East the right to drill on parkland."

It gets worse:

http://tinyurl.com/l27tdlf


RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@everlastingphelps @Guesty@holmantx@markzeroSelling or leasing mineral rights UNDER the ground does not necessarily convey access from the surface, from my understanding.  Mining interests and ranchers were forever battling over this back home, especially in cases where the Federal gov't had leased grazing rights (surface rights) to ranchers and mineral rights (subsurface rights) to mining interests on the same tracts of land.  Exploitation of the mineral rights did not supercede exercise of the grazing rights, and neither leased access right took precedence over the public interest in the land (mostly BLM land).  Add water rights into it, and things could get even uglier, shootin' ugly.

becoolerifyoudid
becoolerifyoudid

@schermbeck @everlastingphelps@Guesty@holmantx@markzero If the City that denied the permit had not been the Lessor as well then we would be in complete agreement. 


The issue is that the City apparently had no issue with granting the right to develop the tracts in 2008.  Nothing changed between 2008 and the SUP permitting process years later.  So if it was OK to drill when the $ was getting paid, why wasn't it OK later.


The lease contractually obligated TE to explore for oil and gas, it seems a bit incongruous to deny the ability to fulfill that obligation, but not until the $ is collected and spent.


Ultimately, I think this is still a breach, but an efficient breach.

schermbeck
schermbeck

@everlastingphelps @Guesty@holmantx@markzero"unreasonably opposing a variance." You never answered "guesty.' Cite the facts and law that made it "unreasonable." The record is full of peer-reviewed and journal published science showing  how reasonable it was to deny these permits for surface drilling in parks and floodplains, next to a new huge recreation center. Especially when the same city had just denied a permit for a concrete plant with less pollution next door because of public health concerns. The courts will find it very reasonable indeed. 

becoolerifyoudid
becoolerifyoudid

@Guesty @becoolerifyoudid @mavdog They cannot contract away that power, but exercising it could still be a breach.  Especially if that power is used in an arbitrary and capricious manner. 


The City is simultaneously selling the right to drill (and creating a duty to do so) and denying that right. 


We will see how it all plays out.  This just doesn't pass the smell test.  Then again, plenty of people don't care for the smell of drilling and fracking either.

Guesty
Guesty

@becoolerifyoudid @Guesty @mavdog  "I would say denying the variance (especially when it was recommended by city staff) is opposing the variance."  But the city cannot contract away the authority to deny the SUP.  

becoolerifyoudid
becoolerifyoudid

@Guesty @becoolerifyoudid@mavdog I would say denying the variance (especially when it was recommended by city staff) is opposing the variance.  The question is whether that was unreasonable. And it still does not get rid of the takings claim.  Give this a year and see if it settles.  Anything less than $20M is a win for the City, so the City should be able to spin this as a win in the end. 

scottie1620
scottie1620

@becoolerifyoudid @Guesty @mavdog  There has never been an issue of a variance. The ONLY time the word "variance" is mentioned in the gas drilling ordinance is when a setback variance is requested to allow drilling closer to protected use areas than normally allowed. That would be a part of the drilling permit process. TE never got past the SUP process, so no discussion of "variances" is relative.

scottie1620
scottie1620

@everlastingphelps @Guesty @holmantx @markzero  BULLSHIT!


The City Council authorized a contract that Mary Suhm then changed to add parcels that WE NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL! She admitted as much last march when the Council grilled her in a public hearing, and she even provided a written copy of her letter to TE, which we had already obtained before that date, and which precipitated the March hearing on the illegal activities of Suhm and perkins, both of whom resigned one month later.


The Council did not ever agree to what Mary Suhm privately told TE, and the leases TE signed specifically stated the facts that drilling is prohibited in parks and floodplains, and that drilling would not be allowed unless those ordinances were amended to allow such activities.


The only thing that will matter is the actual language of the lease agreement, not a private letter (regardless of stationery) between Mary Suhm and TE. But, you already know all of this.

Guesty
Guesty

@becoolerifyoudid @Guesty @mavdog  What did the city do to "oppose" the variance.  From what I can tell, the city manager's office recommended that it be approved.  All the city council did was exercise its governance function of voting, which cannot itself be a breach of contract for the very reason you mentioned.

becoolerifyoudid
becoolerifyoudid

@Guesty @becoolerifyoudid@mavdog What court is this in?  I get that this would be brought up early in a motion.  I'm just thinking it might get through. 

Also there is the issue of whether opposing the variance was "reasonable" which sounds like a fact issue for the jury.

Also, I don't recall there being much in the way of zoning requirements for urban drilling in 2008.  Fort Worth had a bit, but I will defer to those with better time lines.  So I am not sure there was much of a zoning problem at the time of executing the lease.

Guesty
Guesty

@becoolerifyoudid @mavdog  


"Scenario 1 is no problem and fairly typical.  Scenario 2 is just wrong.  The COD/TE leans closer to Scenario 2 than 1, but there is the twist of the City not being legally able to contract away its statutory police powers- i.e. zoning ordinances." 


This is key, and I think you are missing a key procedural point.  This issue is one for the court, not the jury, to decide because it goes to whether there is any jurisdiction to hear the case.  This issue will be decided by the trial judge, and then will be immediately appealable to the Court of Appeals because it raises a question of sovereign immunity.  The issue will be decided before a jury ever sees it.  


And the facts are much less problematic for the city because TE knew it had a problem with zoning when it signed the lease and tried doing a backroom "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" deal, which it knew wouldn't be enforceable, instead of dealing with the issue above board.  

becoolerifyoudid
becoolerifyoudid

@mavdog Two hypotheticals:

1) A bar owner wants to lease a property to open a bar on lower Greenville.  The landlord says he will sign a lease, but whether the tenant can open the bar depends on city approval/zoning/etc.  They sign the lease, the city says no SUP. 

2) A bar owner goes to the landlord wanting to lease space for a bar.  Landlord says no problem, but whether tenant can open the bar depends on approval from the landlord.  Lease is signed, landlord takes the money, and then tells the tenant- you can't open a bar you don't have the landlord's approval. 


Scenario 1 is no problem and fairly typical.  Scenario 2 is just wrong.  The COD/TE leans closer to Scenario 2 than 1, but there is the twist of the City not being legally able to contract away its statutory police powers- i.e. zoning ordinances. 


Now, do you really want a Dallas County Jury trying to grasp the nuances of paragraph 21(c) and whether the jury finds that paragraphs (a) gets the city off the hook completely, (b) means that there was no breach, but the SUP denial became a taking, (c) is irrelevant because there is evidence of fraud, or (d) is kind of confusing and the City has had some high profile shadiness lately so I'll just agree with whoever is loudest in the jury room.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps

as shown below, Trinity East was notified their ability to extract the minerals in the tract they targeted was subject to Trinity East obtaining a SUP. The lack of awarding the permit is definitely NOT a "breach". The Lessee did not make the Lease "subject to" the permit. If anything they should be suing their attys who advised them to enter into the Lease without that contingency.

The definition of "reasonableness" is not exact, in this case the "reasonable" acts of the City would be to allow for the SUP application to be heard, for it to be decided according to the process established in the Code, and to not engage in concerted opposition to the permit application.

The City acted in the above manner and was "reasonable". Trinity East will not prevail in this lawsuit, they were informed of the need for the permit, acknowledged the same, and went into the Lease with their eyes open. They gambled they could get the permit,and they lost.

Guesty
Guesty

@everlastingphelps @Guesty @holmantx @markzero  


Again, what written obligation created by the lease did the City fail to comply with?  To waive immunity, it has to be in writing in the agreement?  And we know it wasn't in writing or in the agreement because TE is relying on verbal side deals it claims it reached with the city manager that aren't in the lease.  


The failure to change the law is not a proprietary activity as it is an inherently governmental function. 


The constitutional claims are bullshit because they depend on a court holding that zoning to prevent drilling is a taking.  A bridge too far for even the most pro oil & gas courts in the country.    

Guesty
Guesty

@everlastingphelps @Guesty @holmantx @markzero  


Yes, but what part of that agreement did the City breach?  The city didn't agree to change the law to let them drill in the lease.  And oil and gas operators regularly take out leases on property they cannot develop because of the law in existence at the time.  That doesn't nullify the deal.  


If TE wanted something more than a standard oil and gas lease, which doesn't promise anything about changes of the law, then it was required to ask for that to be put into the written agreement.  They rolled the dice knowing they didn't have that agreement.  

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@Guesty @holmantx @markzero  Any first year law student could tell you the contract claim will fail.  Any experienced commercial litigator will also tell you that the city has sovereign immunity from suit for anything other breach of the express, written terms of an agreement authorized by the City Council.  


That's why you don't hire a first-year law student to argue your case.  Sovereign immunity is waived for breach of contract for proprietary activities, and in any event, there are constitutional claims which also have no immunity (specifically that this was an illegal taking.)

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@Guesty @holmantx @markzero  Where in the law does the City Manager have the authority to enter into a verbal contract guaranteeing a the change of a city law?


It isn't, and she didn't do that.  She, in accordance with the authorization given to her by the city council, negotiated a written oil and gas lease, which the city council then ratified and spent the money from.  


The issue isn't some verbal agreement.  The issue is the written agreement where the city agreed to let them drill, took the money, and then refused to let them drill.

Guesty
Guesty

@holmantx @Guesty @markzero  


The facts:  


City places RFP saying it is willing to lease minerals.  Makes no promise in the RFP that it will change any law.    


TE asks the city manager if a change in the law will be made to allow it to drill. City manager says it will try to get a change in the law, though everybody knows that under the law, the city manager cannot actually promise that the law will be changed.  City manager goes so far to even tell TE that she cannot promise a change in the law.    


TE knows that the change in the law it is needs to drill is subject to a side deal with someone it knows doesn't have the authority to promise a change in the law, and who hasn't expressly stated that the law will be changed, but does the deal figuring that the city manager probably can deliver because she usually gets what she wants. TE buys the leases for $19.  Nowhere in any document approved by the city council is their any promise that the law will be changed.  Nowhere in the purchase of the lease does TE insist that it will get its money returned if the law is not changed, something it could have negotiated if it thought it was an essential term of the contract.   In effect, TE places a bet that City Manager will get a change in the law knowing that there is no agreement requiring such a change.


City council doesn't change the law.  


Any first year law student could tell you the contract claim will fail.  Any experienced commercial litigator will also tell you that the city has sovereign immunity from suit for anything other breach of the express, written terms of an agreement authorized by the City Council.  


That's life in the big city.  If your written agreement is conditioned on the other party doing something, that has to go into the written contract.  TE and its lawyers were big boys and girls and knew this going in.  They decided to roll the dice anyhow.  Then it got burned.    

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@Guesty @holmantx @markzero  

Those are not the facts so you will have an opportunity to tell it to a judge, and good luck with that.  I wish it were so.

Guesty
Guesty

@holmantx @Guesty @markzero  Where in the law does the City Manager have the authority to enter into a verbal contract guaranteeing a the change of a city law?  Where?  You keep saying it, so you must know where it is.  


Sure, the City approached them.  But these guys were free to put whatever they wanted into the agreement, including an express reversion if a change in the law was not approved by the City.  They didn't do that.  


And by the way, the City cannot be sued unless it has waived sovereign immunity.  It does so by entering into a written contract, but the city isn't being sued on any written contract.  They are being sued on some bullshit "we were told" that the deal including things that weren't in the written contract theory.  Which doesn't get you past sovereign immunity, and probably directly contradicts the contract itself.     

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@Guesty @holmantx @markzero  

Oh yes she can and it was in writing.  The City approached them, issued a letter promising their cooperation AS AN INDUCEMENT to convey $19 million they would not have otherwise conveyed.

Then the City Manager's Office, within a week, with her present, told the council in the minutes, they would not only NOT help but would work in favor of blocking it.  Breach of Contract - Bad Faith to just get the money.  Game over.

And no legal jujitsu is going to stop this knockout punch.

scottie1620
scottie1620

@holmantx @Guesty  What, exactly, makes you think it would be a jury trial. Corporations usually prefer bench trials because it is easier to buy one judge than 6 or 12 jurors.

Guesty
Guesty

@becoolerifyoudid @Guesty @everlastingphelps @holmantx  See it now, my search of the document didn't turn it up for some reason.  Yes, the fraud claim is a terrible reach.  Hell, the SUP was even recommended to the council to be approved.  What more did the City Manager tell TE could be done?

Guesty
Guesty

@holmantx @Guesty  God, you don't know shit about the law do you.  The City can't be held liable for punitive damages for breach of contract.  

Guesty
Guesty

@holmantx @Guesty  I'd love to.  This would be a great reverse contingency case.  I'd happily take 10% of anything less than $20 million TE is asking for (i.e. $2 million on a take nothing judgment, $0 if TE gets $20 million or more).  And I would be more than happy to roll the dice and take it to trial and appeal with that fee.  

becoolerifyoudid
becoolerifyoudid

@Guesty @becoolerifyoudid@holmantx


No one said it was on contingency, in fact, I stated I don't know what the arrangement is.


The contingency statement I made was a reference to holmantx's comment that Winsted wouldn't take the case if they thought it was a loser.  I'm thinking if they were paid hourly, they would take on a loser of a case.  I don't think they would take a loser on contingency, that's all, but I'm not privy to Winstead's decision making process. 

scottie1620
scottie1620

@holmantx @becoolerifyoudid  


You gotta admit, if Caraway was thinking about TE, then at least he was thinking of protecting them from any communicable diseases! LOL!

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...