Confused..Why is Howard "Re-filing" his Suit?

Discussion in 'Howard Stern' started by Neigh, Jan 4, 2013.

  1. Neigh

    Neigh Well-Known Member

    Howard went through his latest bullshit explanation of his case against Sirius. (His lawyers must flip when he does this because every word can come back to haunt him in a court.) He said that was why he was "re-filing" his lawsuit? What? Last I heard he had lost a summary judgment in the lower court and his appeal was pending. Has there been a decision on the appeal? I Googled and found nothing. How can he re-file the same suit that he lost? I take issue with these things during his rant.
    "We agreed that if Sirius and XM merged and XM fired me, I would get a doomsday payment of say $25. This had nothing to do with the bonus I was promised." First, he cannot say that it was $25,000,000 because he knows it is a huge amount that most people can only dream about. Second, this doomsday argument never appeared in his complaint or answering affidavits to the summary judgment motion.
    "I took an enormous risk. Can you imagine the risk I took?" He took no risk. He didn't take a pay cut to go to Sirius. If Sirius had folded he could have gone back to terrestrial radio the next day and gotten at least as much as KROCK was paying him.. Liberty Media took the risk putting in its cash when Sirius was about to default on its loans. Howard could have taken a real risk and put his money into the company. No chance of that.
    "This judge just glanced at the case and made a snap judgment." The motion for summary judgment was filed in the summer of 2011. Arguments and various odds and ends were submitted by November 2011. The judge did not render a decision until April 2012. You think she made a snap judgment on a case with this kind of scrutiny? Nothing close. I know something about this judge. She is not a flake.
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2013
  2. robhurlburt

    robhurlburt Well-Known Member

    because he wants more money and has no idea how the judge can't see that its cut and clear. he said the first judge says it was to vague, and he hopes the second judge sides with him.
  3. Neigh

    Neigh Well-Known Member

    Yeah but there is something called "res judicata" meaning the case had already been adjudicated which usually bars the filing of a new suit. The decision from the lower court was "on the merits" - meaning it was not just on procedural mistakes - which allows you to start over again. It was on the interpretation of the contract. If appellate court affirms the decision, that's it. You need a totally new theory to go on if you get knocked out of the court "on the merits".
  4. MAJ Badmotherfarker

    MAJ Badmotherfarker is drinking a beer.

  5. Biaviian

    Biaviian Well-Known Member

    Res judicata has some "loopholes" . He can file another lawsuit and it can be thrown out due to res judicata. Another possibility is that he is claiming that the judge wasn't competent. That would allow him to file an identical suit. Of course he could be filing a suit with different wording which could also pass.
  6. hyson

    hyson Forum Jerk

    This is great.

    Howard should sue everyone. EVERYONE! Bababooey, Robin, Fred, et al. I love it.
  7. Neigh

    Neigh Well-Known Member

    If the judge were not competent and it were apparent in her decision, the Appellant Division would reverse the case. He could not just file a new lawsuit on the basis she was incompetent. In any case, this judge is a no-nonsense, experienced, competent judge.

    I suppose he could file on the basis that under another part of the contract he was entitled to $300,000,000 but that is far fetched.. His lawyers would have sued under every possible reading of the contract at the beginning. In
  8. Biaviian

    Biaviian Well-Known Member

    Yes he can. Look-up the exceptions to res judicata and you will see that I am right.
  9. hyson

    hyson Forum Jerk

    "I'm not a lawyer but I play one on DRC"
  10. Biaviian

    Biaviian Well-Known Member

    I only know because I was burned by it in a civil suit. An asshole colonel in the Army sued me over some BS. The judge sided with me because the colonel broke the lease and state laws but the next judge sided with him, I guess, because of his military background. I won on an appeal so all is good. I was told that the 2nd suit was allowed to go through due to an exception in res judicata.
  11. kryptonite

    kryptonite Well-Known Member

    I'm going to assume that the number he threw out for his "doomsday payment" was a random one and not the real amount.

    Still, it's foolish of him to comment on an on-going legal matter. Then again, when was the last time he had a gag order issued against him?
  12. Neigh

    Neigh Well-Known Member

    There is no gag order. The $25,000,000 payment upon merger (which he was paid) is in the fucking papers filed in the court that are open to the public. I have copies. It's in the judge's decision. It's no secret. It's public knowledge. Yet he still cannot bring himself to say out loud to his listeners what he got paid. This is a guy who asks nearly every single guest how much money he or she makes and how much money he or she is worth yet cannot bear to tell his fans an amount that he was paid that is public knowledge.
  13. blyons200

    blyons200 These pretzels are making me thirsty.

    Howard is just a greedy old SOB
  14. Biaviian

    Biaviian Well-Known Member

    Greedy or not it makes for some great radio.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
  15. The Butler

    The Butler Well-Known Member

    The biggest flaw in today's revisionist rant was Howard thinking that if XM took over Sirius that they would honor the merger bonus and not the rest of the contract (sub bonus not withstanding).
  16. Ehilbert1

    Ehilbert1 Ooh-Rah!!!!

    I can kind of see it both ways. The subscribers were already at XM. They would have left XM and went to Sirius for Howard a long time ago. That's what I did. I left XM and bought a lifetimed radio foR Sirius. I did that right when he announced it.

    Then again Sirius would have folded without Howard his subscribers and the publicity it brought. Let's face it when Howard left and went to Sirius it brought more attention to Satellite Radio than anything ever has. So Sirius would have went under without him and it would just be XM now. So he does have a point. Without Howard no Sirius and no SiriusXM plus no XM subscribers with that merge. We all know Sirius just took over XM.
  17. Fergz99

    Fergz99 Member

    Could his refiling have anything to do with the fact that Liberty is about to take control and he thinks the new bosses wont care as much as the old bosses did ?
  18. microbob

    microbob Well-Known Member

  19. Neigh

    Neigh Well-Known Member

    This was written last April when the lower court judge dismissed the case. After that was written Howard did appeal and, to the best of my knowledge, the appeal is still pending. So rather than going through his BS argument,, Howard should have told us the basis for re-filing. I was thinking about his BS doomsday explanation. His contract simply said he would get $25,000,000 if there was a merger. If, as he says, that money was protection in case of a "Doomsday" (if upon a merger XM took over and fired him) then the contract would have said "in the event there is a merger and Stern's employment is terminated by XM or by a new merger entity, then Stern shall be paid $25,000,000.". In fact, there was a merger but he was not fired. Under his interpretation of the purpose of the $25,O00,000, he should give back the $25,000,000 since was not fired.
  20. beaniemac

    beaniemac Well-Known Member

    haven't heard any show from this year yet, but his greed knows no boundaries. why should this be a suprise at all at this point?

Share This Page