[00:00:49] Speaker 01:
there being a material difference between Puma being interested in

[00:01:28] Speaker 03:
individual endorsement, for example.

[00:02:34] Speaker 04:
first time they discussed

[00:03:10] Speaker 04:
Puma to Lamella when Lamella was already

[00:03:44] Speaker 01:
contract was

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
It doesn't automatically follow that the brand might have a different level of interest in the person, whether the person is part of the group or the person is individual.

[00:04:19] Speaker 01:
So is there anything in the record that tells us that LaMelo was like less attractive to Puma as an individual and so Miss Johnson was needed to convince them?

[00:04:28] Speaker 03:
Well, all we have in the record is that

[00:04:54] Speaker 03:
He had Lamella Ball's phone number and didn't

[00:05:47] Speaker 03:
develop that interest until Amber Johnson.

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
shoe contract.

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
Like, that's not a first contact.

[00:06:33] Speaker 03:
That means that the shoe contract, that Pumah thinks that the shoe contract is already in the works and done, and she's going to be doing it, which means that there's a contract already being contemplated.

[00:07:08] Speaker 03:
an enforcement deal from my client, Lamello Ball.

[00:07:12] Speaker 03:
And what does Puma make?

[00:07:13] Speaker 03:
They make shoes.

[00:07:14] Speaker 03:
So I think you're drawing an inference for which there's not sufficient evidentiary record.

[00:07:22] Speaker 03:
And that would just be a very odd opening statement from Puma, like, oh, I'm interested in representing Lamello.

[00:07:30] Speaker 03:
Are you going to be doing a shoe contract?

[00:07:31] Speaker 03:
Isn't usually not the first thing

[00:07:56] Speaker 03:
says to Ms.

[00:07:58] Speaker 03:
Johnson, are you doing LaMelo Ball's shoe contract, okay?

[00:08:04] Speaker 03:
Which means that what Aron Jacevski is doing is he's distinguishing in his mind the pre-existing communications with the Ball brothers versus what Amber Johnson is saying, and she's saying, I represent LaMelo Ball individually.

[00:08:34] Speaker 03:
I mean, I'm still confused about why the source hasn't already been established between Puma

[00:09:15] Speaker 04:
Basically, well, wait a second, we're already dealing with CNA.

[00:09:58] Speaker 03:
Mr. Jackson puts the kibosh on.

[00:10:07] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:10:29] Speaker 03:
At the time, he was well aware that she was working for LaMelo Ball and well aware that she was soliciting Puma.

[00:10:40] Speaker 03:
He knew that.

[00:10:42] Speaker 03:
There are text messages that show that.

[00:10:57] Speaker 04:
whatever other apparel they wanted him to wear on the basketball court doesn't prove she was the source of the conflict.

[00:11:54] Speaker 04:
in that same message, he said exclusive.

[00:11:56] Speaker 03:
No, it's the other way around.

[00:11:58] Speaker 03:
Other way around.

[00:11:58] Speaker 03:
Yes, you can see it's the other way around.

[00:12:01] Speaker 03:
He said exclusive, and then he said non-exclusive, and that's the reason why they're both- How old at the time that he's having this discussion?

[00:12:09] Speaker 03:
Mr. Ball.

[00:12:10] Speaker 03:
Yeah, a little- Seventeen.

[00:12:11] Speaker 03:
Seventeen, yeah.

[00:12:12] Speaker 04:
Oh, and I don't think that the age issue is before the court, but- Well, I'm not so sure.

[00:12:22] Speaker 03:
When Mr. Sheshevsky gave his voluntary declaration in support of the motion for some rejection, that's surely what he said, but it's not what he was saying at the time when Ms.

[00:12:37] Speaker 03:
Johnson contacted

[00:13:11] Speaker 02:
I'd like to focus on the argument we just heard the most about, which is the distinction between the family deal and the individual deal.

[00:13:20] Speaker 02:
I would first agree with Judge Tallman that it doesn't make a difference.

[00:13:24] Speaker 02:
If there's interest, there's interest.

[00:13:26] Speaker 02:
But I want to focus on the facts of the case, because even if there was a difference there, be it qualitative or quantitative, as we heard, the evidence is that Pumo was interested in the individual deal from the get-go.

[00:13:41] Speaker 02:
And I would point you to Mr. Sieszewski's declaration, which is in the record.

[00:13:47] Speaker 02:
It's pages 2180 is where it starts.

[00:13:49] Speaker 02:
And he says right at the beginning of the declaration, we were interested in the deal with the Ball brothers, either individually or collectively.

[00:13:59] Speaker 02:
So that's where we start.

[00:14:00] Speaker ?:
We start with an interest in both.

[00:14:03] Speaker 02:
And then he goes on to say,

[00:14:22] Speaker 03:
his vision of doing his own thing.

[00:14:25] Speaker 03:
So that seems like it's a new thing happening, that their interest, Puma's interest in Amello individually is not from the start.

[00:15:00] Speaker 02:
which is, of course, where they ended up.

[00:15:02] Speaker 02:
That's a process of how you go from the initial contact, the source, to where we ended up, which is the final agreement.

[00:15:09] Speaker 02:
That's a step on the route.

[00:15:10] Speaker 02:
No doubt about that.

[00:15:12] Speaker 03:
But the interest... I mean, it is some evidence for Ms.

[00:15:15] Speaker 03:
Johnson that, you know, the day after they talk and they contact, a couple of days after she contacts Puma for the first time, he says, we had a meeting yesterday and we like his vision.

[00:15:26] Speaker 03:
You know, it's like, oh, yeah.

[00:15:50] Speaker 01:
about dealing with LaMelo individually because of his age.

[00:16:43] Speaker 01:
marketing reason that Puma would want, that we want all of them.

[00:16:47] Speaker 01:
And that's all the energy is focused there, and we're looking at LaMelo individually, and now he's too young, we just, we want the group.

[00:16:54] Speaker 01:
And then you have a new person enter the scene who makes the pitch for the individual deal and all of the benefits of the individual deal.

[00:17:01] Speaker 01:
Why isn't that, if those were the

[00:17:47] Speaker 02:
made that decision two months prior.

[00:17:51] Speaker 02:
So that is the reason why

[00:18:17] Speaker 01:
contract, she needs to source the deal, not source the larger relationship.

[00:18:24] Speaker 02:
Okay, so that's a – it's – as asked in the district court, what's the difference between those two terms, we didn't get a very clear answer, and I'm not sure we got a clear answer today.

[00:19:08] Speaker 02:
identify potential opportunities, potential endorsement opportunities for Mr. Ball.

[00:19:15] Speaker 02:
And she says later in the complaint that what she found later became a deal, but she didn't find the deal.

[00:19:22] Speaker 02:
She found something less than the deal, or I wouldn't say less, I'd say earlier than the deal, because it's really just a temporal difference.

[00:19:30] Speaker 02:
And the one substantive

[00:19:46] Speaker 02:
they do, then the parties negotiate their contract.

[00:19:51] Speaker 02:
That's the difference between what a finder does, there's the analogy being drawn here, and what agents and lawyers do.

[00:20:00] Speaker 02:
So her job wasn't to find a partnership, her job was to find interest.

[00:20:05] Speaker 02:
And she concedes that's actually all she found.

[00:20:09] Speaker 02:
What is argued in the appellate brief, page three, she says,

[00:20:41] Speaker 01:
to get somebody to return a phone call and be like, oh hey, I might have interest there.

[00:21:25] Speaker 02:
compensation from it because it was a new interest, a new relationship that had not existed before her involvement.

[00:21:33] Speaker 02:
So that's what led, according to plaintiffs, to the agreement in the first place.

[00:21:38] Speaker 02:
The oral contract arose out of that experience.

[00:21:42] Speaker 02:
And that experience explains the kinds of things

[00:22:21] Speaker 01:
I guess I'm going to tease this out one last time and give you a new hypothetical.

[00:22:27] Speaker 01:
If you had an athlete who was sort of a superstar youth athlete and had an endorsement deal with a company that expired, you know, let's say,

[00:22:49] Speaker 01:
So then you have someone new enter the scene to go back to that first company he had the endorsement with to try to pitch, you should sign this guy as an adult athlete as well.

[00:22:59] Speaker 01:
Would you agree that under how this contract was formed, that coming in at that stage of the proceedings would be sort of sourcing a new situation?

[00:23:12] Speaker 01:
I mean, the relationship exists, right, because they had the endorsement deal from the youth period.

[00:23:21] Speaker 01:
very general way, but it is sort of making a pitch for a particular business arrangement.

[00:23:29] Speaker 02:
So I think the key there might turn somewhat on the timing.

[00:23:34] Speaker 02:
It might turn on what the prior sponsor partner has said.

[00:23:51] Speaker 02:
That's not the case here, where Puma says we have interests multiple times throughout the summer of 2019, and then they ultimately consummate a deal.

[00:23:59] Speaker 02:
The deal never died.

[00:24:01] Speaker 02:
It was actively ongoing.

[00:24:04] Speaker 02:
The undisputed evidence is that Puma was just waiting for the draft to conclude, because Mr. Ball was not in the draft, only his brother was, and for him to turn 18.

[00:24:22] Speaker 02:
circumstances of the hypothetical.

[00:24:24] Speaker 02:
But in this context, I don't believe it's disputed that Puma expressed its interest individually, and then it weighed

[00:25:10] Speaker 02:
established when I got that email that Pumo was interested in Mr. Ball and that we had been in contact with CAA about signing him.

[00:25:21] Speaker 02:
That's what he says in his declaration and the reason why he reached out according to his declaration is because he thought Miss Johnson was a publicist or had some different role than CAA because CAA is who they're talking to about the endorsement deal.

[00:25:55] Speaker 02:
across the table, and we just don't know what Ms.

[00:25:58] Speaker 02:
Johnson's role is in this negotiation we've been having with CAA.

[00:26:05] Speaker 02:
And what's important about Mr. Sieszewski's declaration is that district court really focused on it in reaching its ruling.

[00:26:13] Speaker 02:
And the district court said to Mr. Grossman, my friend,

[00:27:03] Speaker 02:
That's just on the Puma side.

[00:27:04] Speaker 02:
Now on the Ball side of the equation, we've got Mr. Jackson's declaration, which the district court also pointed out was undisputed.

[00:27:13] Speaker 02:
And he says that the spring meeting with Puma was to start a discussion with all three brothers, including Mr. Jackson.

[00:27:21] Speaker 02:
And then he also points out that there was a discussion, a meeting that he attended with LaMelo Ball on July 23rd to talk about the Puma shoe contract.

[00:27:42] Speaker 02:
to Mr. Jackson.

[00:27:44] Speaker 02:
He texts her about the meeting at 8.36 a.m.

[00:28:25] Speaker 03:
I'd like to first address some inaccuracies in the record as to when Puma was interested in the Lamello ball individually.

[00:28:34] Speaker 03:
In May of 2019, there was a meeting between Puma and CAA.

[00:28:41] Speaker 03:
The only ball brother discussed at that meeting was Lonzo Ball, not Lamello Ball.

[00:28:46] Speaker 03:
That is in the record.

[00:28:48] Speaker 03:
As to that time period, Barton Jaszewski testified that Puma's interest was in a, quote,

[00:29:22] Speaker 03:
business about waiting for Mr. Bald to