LeSean McCoy Sued by Ex-Girlfriend Delicia Cordon - Now Making Accusations of Being Physically Abused

[May Day 10]

This reeks of posturing of the plaintiff, threatening to drag mccoys name through the mud in a court.... true or false. Hitting dogs, hitting kids, roids, etc ..  Unless he agrees to either pay her to go away with a tidy sum, or marry her

 

Is he going to want someone giving testimony, detailing how he beat his dog? Or spanked his kid or whatever?

Edited August 13, 2018 by May Day 10

[MTBill]

Her credibility is going to be heavily called into question here - and 'character' witnesses go both ways.

 

I served for a week on a hung jury trial which was solely based on testimony.  It was a criminal trial - but there were multiple jurors who simply could not convict based solely on testimony alone.  They stated they believed at least some of the testimony of the victim, but in the end could not convict someone based strictly on the testimony.

 

One of the important things on this if it ends up in court is jury selection.  I don't know whether Shady gets to choose Jury vs. Judge like a defendant in a criminal case would.  In this case, a judge is probably a better choice.  They are going to have a better sniff test than a group of "peers".

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

 

McCoy's ex sues RB over home invasion, attack

Delicia Cordon, the ex-girlfriend of Buffalo Bills running back LeSean McCoy, filed a personal injury lawsuit Friday against McCoy and his former University of Pittsburgh teammate Tamarcus Porter in connection to a July 10 home invasion in which Cordon was beaten and robbed of jewelry.

(...)

The civil lawsuit, filed in a Fulton County court, alleges that McCoy should be held financially responsible for Cordon's injuries because he had previously changed the security codes to the home and refused to provide them to her. As such, Cordon's suit argues that McCoy "breached his duty to use ordinary care to protect Plaintiff from dangerous activities being conducted at the Residence."

 

Leaving aside the whole Lesean McCoy thing, and acknowledging that the woman suffered injuries, it just doesn't seem right that you can have the property owner request that someone who does not hold a lease to the property or co-own it, please move out....have them refuse such that the property owner must initiate eviction proceedings.....and then have them sue you because they don't provide you with a security system or the level of security monitoring they believe you should have provided.

 

When did that become a standard of "ordinary care"?

 

I'm also guessing this indicates that the police are not getting anywhere solving the criminal case

[Rocky Landing]

1 minute ago, May Day 10 said:

This reeks of posturing of the plaintiff, threatening to drag mccoys name through the mud.... true or false.  Unless he agrees to either pay her to go away with a tidy sum, or marry her

If I were him, I'd choose the former.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Leaving aside the whole Lesean McCoy thing, and acknowledging that the woman suffered injuries, it just doesn't seem right that you can have the property owner request that someone who does not hold a lease to the property or co-own it, please move out....have them refuse such that the property owner must initiate eviction proceedings.....and then have them sue you because they don't provide you with a security system or the level of security monitoring they believe you should have provided.

 

When did that become a standard of "ordinary care"?

 

I'm also guessing this indicates that the police are not getting anywhere solving the criminal case

 

Golddiggers are shameless and feel entitled. 

[Rocky Landing]

1 minute ago, MTBill said:

Her credibility is going to be heavily called into question here - and 'character' witnesses go both ways.

 

I served for a week on a hung jury trial which was solely based on testimony.  It was a criminal trial - but there were multiple jurors who simply could not convict based solely on testimony alone.  They stated they believed at least some of the testimony of the victim, but in the end could not convict someone based strictly on the testimony.

 

One of the important things on this if it ends up in court is jury selection.  I don't know whether Shady gets to choose Jury vs. Judge like a defendant in a criminal case would.  In this case, a judge is probably a better choice.  They are going to have a better sniff test than a group of "peers".

 

I'm going to guess that they probably won't be Bills fans.

[JohnBonhamRocks]

As far as practical impact on the roster, if this does cause a suspension - or maybe even if it does not - I think there will be at least one Patriots HB who Daboll might want to sign out of Michel (will not cut), Burkhead, White, Jeremy Hill, Gillislee, and Bolden. 

 

Edit: Eagles, too, with Ajayi, Sproles, Clement, Matt Jones, Wendell Smallwood, and Josh Adams.

Edited August 13, 2018 by JohnBonhamRocks

[Rocky Landing]

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Leaving aside the whole Lesean McCoy thing, and acknowledging that the woman suffered injuries, it just doesn't seem right that you can have the property owner request that someone who does not hold a lease to the property or co-own it, please move out....have them refuse such that the property owner must initiate eviction proceedings.....and then have them sue you because they don't provide you with a security system or the level of security monitoring they believe you should have provided.

 

When did that become a standard of "ordinary care"?

 

I'm also guessing this indicates that the police are not getting anywhere solving the criminal case

Interesting point. I wonder how many resources law enforcement is putting into this thing?

IF she actually believes that Shady was responsible, she would want the police case solved, as that would make her claim of damages a slam dunk. So, it benefits her to wait. 

IF she doesn't believe he is responsible, she wants the case to go unsolved, so that the perp's identities don't derail her civil case. So, she files sooner rather than later.

 

All things being equal, I would assume her legal team would choose sooner over later.

[snamsnoops]

• It's her word against his, and without evidence it could be tough. However, Shady would probable be better off to just make this go away$$$$$$$

[x-BillzeBubba]

1 minute ago, snamsnoops said:

• It's her word against his, and without evidence it could be tough. However, Shady would probable be better off to just make this go away$$$$$$$

He may get in trouble with the league office if he just pays her off, they might see it as a tacit confession

[HansLanda]

16 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

Interesting point. I wonder how many resources law enforcement is putting into this thing?

IF she actually believes that Shady was responsible, she would want the police case solved, as that would make her claim of damages a slam dunk. So, it benefits her to wait. 

IF she doesn't believe he is responsible, she wants the case to go unsolved, so that the perp's identities don't derail her civil case. So, she files sooner rather than later.

 

All things being equal, I would assume her legal team would choose sooner over later.

 

That is all fine and dandy, but if there is no police involvement or indictment, Shady will probably do one of these: (1) fight the suit in court <-- can be a royal pain and a time suck (2) pay her something to get this all to stop and have her absolve him of any wrong doing <-- not sure the NFL will care if they think there is anything more to the story, but I would ask her for a $ number and offer half for her to get out of his life (3) nuclear option: fight suit and counter sue. 

 

 

[snamsnoops]

2 minutes ago, x-BillzeBubba said:

He may get in trouble with the league office if he just pays her off, they might see it as a tacit confession

Or with no evidence it could be viewed as damage control. I hear what you are saying, there is no easy way.

[x-BillzeBubba]

1 minute ago, snamsnoops said:

Or with no evidence it could be viewed as damage control. I hear what you are saying, there is no easy way.

he gets her to completely and publicly retract any accusations, in exchange for a nice house paid for by an anonymous benefactor

[Rocky Landing]

2 minutes ago, HansLanda said:

 

That is all fine and dandy, but if there is no police involvement or indictment, Shady will probably do one of these: (1) fight the suit in court <-- can be a royal pain and a time suck (2) pay her something to get this all to stop and have her absolve him of any wrong doing <-- not sure the NFL will care if they think there is anything more to the story, but I would ask her for a $ number and offer half for her to get out of his life (3) nuclear option: fight suit and counter sue. 

 

 

I just can't imagine all the dirty laundry that could get aired in a civil trial like this. Even the things that ultimately wouldn't be admissible in court would wind up in the news. Just look at all the allegations already made from dog beatings to child abuse! I just can't see him wanting to sign up for that kind of public ugliness! Option (2) sure seems like the most likely, as hard a pill as that may be for him to swallow. 

3 minutes ago, snamsnoops said:

Or with no evidence it could be viewed as damage control. I hear what you are saying, there is no easy way.

I wouldn't think so.

I would also assume that any settlement would also include an NDA. The NFL doesn't have a tacit immunity to NDAs.

[thenorthremembers]

11 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

I just can't imagine all the dirty laundry that could get aired in a civil trial like this. Even the things that ultimately wouldn't be admissible in court would wind up in the news. Just look at all the allegations already made from dog beatings to child abuse! I just can't see him wanting to sign up for that kind of public ugliness! Option (2) sure seems like the most likely, as hard a pill as that may be for him to swallow. 

I wouldn't think so.

I would also assume that any settlement would also include an NDA. The NFL doesn't have a tacit immunity to NDAs.

What I dont understand is if he really beat his dog and did that stuff to his kid, how is she not complicit in it?

 

 

[Numark3]

Okay, here is an actual analysis of the complaint, feel free to ask questions!

 

1)  This is amateurish, and looks like someone who hasn't filed a lot of civil complaints (or successful ones at least).  The first thing that's odd is there are exhibits to the complaint.  Unless, Georgia state courts have different rules on this than most other states, this is not required for most cases and is very unnecessary (and can be harmful).  Especially these types of exhibits.  This likely means these exhibits are meant for the public to see.  Similarly, the writing style is amateurish, and is written for the public to read.  That's fine, but it just isn't done very well.  This doesn't mean anything, but her using the term "trustmaker" is odd.  I have never heard of this term, and its usually called a settlor.  Maybe its common in Georgia, but it sounds like a term someone would use who isn't familiar with the technical  word.  

 

2)  Her not having a section for her claims or causes of action is a pet peeve of mine.  It isn't required, but you need to state your claims, or at the very least, make it clear what your claims are.  Here there is a clear claim of negligence against McCoy, but who knows what the claim is against Porter.  Again, this is just amateurish.  It won't cause real issues for her, but Georgia requires a short and plain statement of the claims.  Maybe what she has is sufficient.  Maybe not.  But even if its not, she can just amend the complaint so no biggie.  

 

3) Okay, so the actual claim against McCoy is a negligence claim.  The gist of negligence is that someone owes a duty of care to someone, breaches that duty, and this breach causes damages.  Despite all of the ambiguous fluff in the complaint, the outline of her negligence claim is pretty explicit.  Here are the four elements

 

Duty: McCoy has a duty to protect her from dangerous activities being conducted at the house.

 

Breach:  McCoy breached this duty by changing the security system and preventing her from accessing the security system

 

Cause: Somehow the breach was the causation that led to the damages (this is highly problematic....she was the victim of a home robbery)

 

Damages:  Lots here, not an issue.  

 

 

 

4) The first thing that is going to happen is a motion to dismiss from McCoy.  For a motion to dismiss, you assume every single fact in the complaint as true.  You then ask, is there an actual legal claim here?  To survive a motion to dismiss, the ex-girlfriend needs to show that each of those four elements of sufficient facts and legal reasoning.  The standard is very low for the plaintiff to meet.  Let's look at these four elements:

 

 

Duty: Under OCGA Section 51-3-1, owners of land owe a duty to individuals on the premise. This law states "Where an owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries caused by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe."  

 

The common rule in Georgia is this duty does not "normally include taking measures to protect them against the intervening criminal acts of third parties, because such acts are usually unforeseeable. Anderson v. Radisson Hotel Corp., 834 F. Supp. 1364, 1370 (S.D. Ga. 1993) (citing Atlanta Center Ltd. v. Cox, 178 Ga.App. 184, 341 S.E.2d 15, 16 (1986)).  But a "duty to take security measures against the risk of criminal acts of third parties does arise if the proprietor is put on notice, by substantially similar past incidents, that his patrons were subject to the risk of criminal assault. Grandma's Biscuits, Inc. v. Baisden, 192 Ga.App. 816, 386 S.E.2d 415, 416 (1989) (quotations omitted) ( citing Anderson v. Radisson Hotel Corp., 834 F. Supp. 1364, 1370 (S.D. Ga. 1993)).  This is essentially an issue of foreseeability.  You can only be liable under a theory of negligence for the conduct of third parties if that harm is foreseeable.***  Here the complaint doesnt touch on the issue of foreseeability, and there is a decent chance this could be grounds for a motion to dismiss.  But the court likely won't even reach this as the causation element is the most lacking.  

 

Breach:  I'm not going to spend much time on this.  Here the argument is McCoy breached the duty (assuming there is a duty) by installing a security system.  This is pretty silly.  Now, the plaintiff frames this as installing a security system and not giving her access to it, but it is installing a security system nonetheless.  The proper framing of this issue is McCoy did not adequately secure the premise, but this is not explained very well.  On a motion to dismiss, this might be enough (but on the next change McCoy would have to defeat this lawsuit, this would be extremely problematic to the ex-girlfriend), but it leads to the next element which is the most problematic for the plaintiff

 

Cause: How in the world does installing a security system and not providing access to the plaintiff cause the harm?  That is my question, I have no earthly idea.  It isn't explained and will be the primary grounds for the motion to dismiss.  I don't even know what the plaintiff is hinting at here.... Re-reading, the complaint, perhaps the argument is she didn't have the ability to turn on the cameras?  Again, I dont see how this would have prevented any of the harm.  This theory also runs into arguments in the breach-of-duty section (can it really be a breach of duty to not give tenants full access to a security system?  I doubt any court would go down this route.)

 

Damages:  Lots here, not an issue.  

 

 

Verdict:  There is a very good chance this is dismissed on a motion to dismiss depending on how liberal the Georgia courts are on pleading standards.  Regardless, I don't see how this could survive a motion for summary judgment on the issues of foreseeability or causation.  

 

 

 

*** Here is the georgia court of appeals explaining this:  "The general rule is that a landlord does not ensure a tenant's safety against third-party criminal attacks, and that any liability from such attacks must be predicated on a breach of duty to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe. OCGA § 51–3–1; Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, supra at 492(1), 405 S.E.2d 474. If a proprietor has reason to anticipate a criminal act, then the proprietor has a duty to exercise ordinary care to guard against injury from dangerous characters. Id. The basis of liability is a proprietor's superior knowledge of the existence of a condition that may subject an invitee to an unreasonable risk of harm. Howell v. Three Rivers Security, 216 Ga.App. 890, 892, 456 S.E.2d 278 (1995)."  Johnson v. Holiday Food Stores, Inc., 238 Ga. App. 822, 823, 520 S.E.2d 502, 504 (1999) (quotations omitted)

 

 

  

Edited August 14, 2018 by Crayola64

[BillsFan17]

 

[Augie]

For those who are new here, “LeSean” is actually pronounced as “Bob”. 

[BillsFan4]

Is it normal for a civil suit to be filed so quickly, and while the original investigation is still ongoing like this? Seems kind of quick to me but maybe this is the norm. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Anyone named Delicia is a gold digger

 

c'mon LeSean , you got to be smarter than that