This afternoon New York City Ballet filed its answer and a motion to dismiss the Waterbury complaint which it expects to be heard in court on April 22. The company has filed only on behalf of itself, not SAB, and explained that SAB is a separate entity neither owned nor operated by NYCB. So, it seems that a separate answer from SAB can be expected shortly.
All of it seems to be very straight forward and persuasive, particularly the memorandum of law.
In addition to taking the wind out of Waterbury's sails, these responses will probably leave Alastair Irrelevant and Gia Klueless feeling terribly dejected and depressed -- perhaps even crushed. Interestingly, NYCB's law firm is also the NYT's. Perhaps that's why Irrelevant & Klueless have cut back on their nasty, baseless attacks and bullying. Possibly someone roped them back into their smelly, manure-filled stalls.
I've read NYCB's (long) answer. I don't think any reasonable person ever thought Waterbury had a realistic claim against the company. As far as I'm concerned, the central issue is the behavior of the three former principal dancers: both Waterbury's claim against them and the company's justification in their removal from the roster. How this plays out in court is far more significant than anything Alistair or Gia may have to say about it.
Posted by: Solor | February 21, 2019 at 12:37 AM
It definitely will be interesting to follow that secondary issue but I doubt that it will ever play out in court. The dancers' union and the company may be bound to arbitration in most disputes, but we'll see. There's certainly a lot at stake, though.
Posted by: Haglund | February 21, 2019 at 07:50 AM
The sloppiness of writing and failure to verify some basic facts came back to bite Mr. Jordan Merson. Among numerous denials of alleged facts there were only few admissions by NYCB. And one of those admitted facts was this: Yes, it is true that George Balanchine and Lincoln Kirsten founded both the school and the company.
Posted by: Dreamer | February 21, 2019 at 11:17 AM
True. And note that NYCB is asking for attorney's fees and reimbursement of all costs, which is good. Frankly, I don't like the idea of my donations going toward paying for this nonsense.
Posted by: Haglund | February 21, 2019 at 11:38 AM
I think Merson is going to have a lot to answer to especially with regards to Longhitano. As others have mentioned, Merson did absolutely no fact-checking, or basic due diligence, or he did and didn't care, but rather immediately took his client's statements and went to the media and press. From what I understand, lawyers are given a decent amount of leeway because they are essentially mouthpieces for their clients, but they still have a responsibility to act ethically and at least determine some basis of fact. Would love to hear an attorney's opinion on this if any counsel is reading these threads.
Posted by: NYer | February 21, 2019 at 12:02 PM