Judge rejects Sonics' motion

U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman wasted no time in settling one issue of the impending trial between the city of Seattle and the Sonics' ownership group, issuing an order Tuesday that denies the team's motion to include the determination of its financial obligations should it win at trial.

The decision means the trial remains scheduled for a June 16 start. Should the city lose on the specific performance question in that case, a second trial would likely be needed to determine the amount of money the Sonics would need to pay in order to satisfy their rent obligations and be free to move to Oklahoma City.

That second trial wouldn't preclude the team from moving by next season, but the city could appeal that decision and seek a stay pending the appeal that would prohibit the move until the case is resolved.

In other words, Clay Bennett's ability to move the franchise to Oklahoma by next season remains very up in the air as the legal drama plays out.

Tuesday's decision by Pechman puts to rest a question that arose April 24 when the Sonics' lawyers filed a motion asking that the question of how much money Bennett's ownership group would need to pay to satisfy the lease obligations be determined during the June trial.

But the city's attorneys countered by successfully arguing that the motion changed the complexity of the case, saying they'd need a six-month delay if the motion was granted.

The Sonics filed a brief Monday saying they'd withdraw the motion if such a delay were necessary, but Pechman resolved that situation with Tuesday's order denying the motion altogether.

She noted that the Sonics agreed at a Jan. 29 scheduling conference that the entire case revolved around a "single declaratory issue" over whether the city is entitled to specific performance of having the team play the remaining two years of games at KeyArena under its current lease.

Pechman said the request to expand the scope of the argument should have been made at the time of the scheduling conference, during which she set the format for the six-day bench trial to begin June 16 in her U.S. District courtroom.

"Defendant does not offer any reason why the counterclaim could not have been brought in the original pleadings," Pechman said in her ruling. "In light of the accelerated trial schedule, granted at Defendant's request, the Court finds that Defendant's proposed amendment would be prejudicial to the City's development of discovery in this case."