FILED

3/18/2022 2:14 PM
JOHN F. WARREN
COUNTY CLERK
DALLAS COUNTY

CAUSE NO. CC-22-01322-D

§
DONN NELSON, § IN THE COUNTY COURT
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § AT LAW NO. 4
§
DALLAS BASKETBALL LIMITED, dm/a §
DALLAS MAVERICKS and RADICAL §
MAVERICKS MANAGEMENT, LLC, § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
Defendants. §

DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER

COME NOW Defendants Dallas Basketball Limited d/b/a Dallas Mavericks (the “Dallas

Mavericks” or “Mavericks”) and Radical Mavericks Management, LLC (“Radical”) and file this
’
Original Answer to Plaintiff Donn Nelson’s (“Plaintiff or “Nelson”) Original Petition and would

respectfully show the Court as follows:

I.

NATURE OF DISPUTE

This lawsuit — and its utterly fictitious Petition —

represents the final desperate effort of

Nelson’s lengthy scheme to extort as much as $100 million from the Dallas Mavericks. Long

before filing this lawsuit, Nelson demanded that he receive, in effect, a blackmail payment in

exchange for his promises not to expose the sexual orientation of a former Mavericks front-office

employee or to assert other claims which he promised would embarrass Defendants and certain

individuals, including Mark Cuban. When his demands were not met, and his own conduct was

revealed, Nelson’s desperation intensified. The result is this lawsuit and a Petition filled with false

Page 1
accusations designed solely to obtain publicity for use as leverage against Defendants. This will

not stand.

The true nature of the facts underlying the dispute are as follows:

A. Concerned About His Financial Future, Nelson Seeks a Long-Term

Employment Contract in Exchange for His Silencing of a Family Member.

Nelson spent more than two decades as a member of the Mavericks front office. But by

2020, thanks to numerous poor personnel decisions and issues with the team’s performance,

Nelson’s star had faded and there were public calls for a change. Nelson was rightfully concerned.

As an at-will employee of the Mavericks who never had an employment contract, a team decision

to change general managers would leave him unemployed with no guarantee of any severance or

payout. Nelson was concerned about his long-term financial security. Out of that desperation, a

plot emerged.

In mid-to-late August 2020, Nelson approached Mavericks’ team governor Mark Cuban

and stated that he knew of purported scandalous allegations from a family member that he could

“make go away” in exchange for a long-term employment contract that he had long desired.

Specifically, Nelson indicated that he had recently been informed that his 29-year-old nephew

claimed to have been sexually harassed by a Mavericks executive. Defendants’ representatives

told Nelson that if an “assault” had occurred, then Nelson should immediately contact the

authorities. Contrary to the statements in his Petition now, Nelson assured Defendants that there

had not been an “assault” and, to Defendants’ knowledge, neither Nelson nor anyone else ever

contacted the authorities as the Defendants had suggested. However, Nelson stressed that if the

allegation became public, it would cause embarrassment for a team that had just recently dealt

with unrelated claims of sexual misconduct and implied it would “out” the Mavericks executive’s

sexual orientation. In exchange for a lengthy and high-paying guaranteed contract, Nelson offered

Page 2
to ensure that the entire incident would disappear. The family member had not yet reached out or

complained to the team about any conduct. Instead, Nelson was offering his services to make sure

that no complaint would ever be made. It now appears, based on more recent events described

below, that this was all part of a plot by Nelson to secure his long-desired multi-year, high-dollar

employment contract.

B. The Mavericks Retain an Independent Firm to Investigate the Alleged

Incident.

Once it learned of Nelson’s adult nephew’s actual allegations, the Mavericks retained an

independent outside law firm to fully investigate the incident. Defendants and others also acted to

immediately inform the NBA of the allegations and kept the league apprised of the situation

throughout the investigation.

The resulting independent investigation received the full cooperation of the team. With

one exception, all of those involved within the Mavericks organization cooperated fully, including

providing text messages and other materials to the investigator. The one curious exception was

Nelson, who refused to fully cooperate including refusing to provide his text messages to

determine the extent of his involvement with his nephew’s allegations.

Critically, the allegations and descriptions of the incident made in Nelson’s Petition

contrast sharply with the contemporaneous statements of all involved. Nelson’s nephew never

asserted that he had been “assaulted.” The actual allegations were not as sensational as the Petition

claims. Indeed, the individuals involved continued to frequently talk and text for six months after

their initial meeting. After the investigation concluded, the matter was closed to Nelson’s

nephew’s satisfaction.

At no time was any action taken against Nelson for raising the incident nor did anyone

threaten to do so. Indeed, Nelson’s employment as the Mavericks’ General Manager and President

Page 3
of Basketball Operations continued for nearly another year—throughout the entirety of the next

NBA season.

C. One Year Later. Nelson is Terminated for Performance Issues and Unrelated
Misconduct.

The year after Nelson’s offer to silence his family member was one of rising tensions and

repeated revelations regarding Nelson’s activities. Most critically, Nelson’s job performance as

General Manager continued to decline, and it became apparent that the team needed a change. At

the end of the 2020-21 NBA season, Cuban called Nelson and, in a recorded call, informed Nelson

that he was being let go.

In no way was the decision to terminate Nelson an act of retaliation. Instead, Nelson was

terminated due to a number of factors including: (1) Nelson’s poor job performance as General

Manager of the Mavericks, (2) the diversion of his time and attention to his numerous outside

business enterprises, and (3) Nelson’s failures to comply with NBA regulations and the Mavericks’

internal human resources policies. While the first issue was well-known around the league, the

latter two categories were discovered in 2021.

In early 2021, Defendants’ management and representatives were contacted by the NBA,

which was inquiring into whether league guidelines had been violated with respect to a sale of

Nelson’s ownership interest in the Texas Legends G-league franchise. Unbeknownst to

Defendants, Nelson had entered into an agreement that equated to an under-the-table sale of his

ownership interest in the Texas Legends Without reporting the sale to the NBA or documenting

the sale with a contemporaneous written contract in violation of NBA league rules.

As troubling as this revelation was, it turned out to be the first of many. Defendants later

discovered additional issues about both Nelson’s outside business activities as well as his conduct

within the organization.

Page 4
 First, although Nelson is required to devote his resources and time to the Mavericks, Nelson

and his family members are owners, officers, directors, and/or registered agents of several dozen

companies. While a few of these businesses were known to Defendants’ management, many were

not. In the months leading up to his termination, Defendants’ management became aware of the

number and extent of these businesses and the substantial amount of time Nelson spent working

on those enterprises instead of the Mavericks. Moreover, the team discovered that many of these

entities — some of which are purported non-profit charities — engaged in questionable activities and

business practices. As Nelson typically touted his role with the Mavericks to entice investors and

others to do business with his and his family’s endeavors — these questionable business activities

and the substantial losses that Nelson’s investors incurred threatened to negatively impact

Defendants.

Second, the team recently discovered that Nelson, unbeknownst to others within the

Mavericks’ organization, attempted to violate NBA and Mavericks’ organizational rules on

numerous occasions by soliciting Mavericks players to participate in one or more of his outside,

non-Mavericks business endeavors. NBA policies and rules prohibit team executives from

soliciting players to invest or participate in outside businesses or otherwise using players to assist

in such outside businesses. Even though it appeared that the players ultimately did not invest or

participate in these other endeavors, Nelson’s unauthorized, self-interested conduct directly

violated these policies.

Third, in the days leading up to his termination, the team was informed about serious

allegations that Nelson had violated the Mavericks’ Respect in the Workplace policy — which were

immediately reported to the NBA. Nelson was terminated one week after the team received these

allegations. The audio recording of the phone call wherein Nelson was terminated will show that

Page 5
Nelson expressed little surprise at his termination, did not claim that he was terminated as an act

of retaliation, and made further statements inconsistent with his allegations in this case.

Nelson’s other alleged act of retaliation — the purported revocation of a pre-existing

contract offer — is simply false. As noted above, Nelson worked for the Mavericks as an at-Will

employee without any employment agreement whatsoever

—
certainly not Nelson’s purported, oral

“lifetime” employment contract (which is a both a legal impossibility and a further work of fiction).

Indeed, Nelson’s own statements and actions at the time he was terminated establish that he knew

he had no “lifetime” employment agreement.

Nelson’s claim that an offer for long-term employment was somehow withdrawn as a

retaliatory act is belied by Nelson’s own purported allegations and contemporaneous e-mails.

Nelson alleges he last reported the purported incident involving his adult nephew during a

September l, 2020 meeting with Cuban. Yet it was not until the evening of September l, 2020 —
after Nelson and Cuban’s meeting earlier that day — that Nelson’s agent, Casey Wasserman, first

reached out to Cuban Via email to begin contract negotiations. Seven days later Wasserman

emailed Cuban and requested a 10-year contract for Nelson followed by an email with a specific

proposed agreement on September ll, 2020. On September 12, 2020 —

nearly two weeks after

Nelson’s last so-called reporting — Cuban emailed Wasserman and made a counteroffer for a long-

term employment contract on slightly different terms.

Not only was the team’s long-term offer made after Nelson’s supposed reporting of the

incident, but the offer’s demise was not the result of any action of Defendants. While Nelson’s

Petition bizarrely claims that he was retaliated against by Defendants pulling the proposed

employment contract, the indisputable fact is that Nelson rez'ected it. On September 14, 2020,

Wasserman replied to Cuban’s September 12 email, rejected Cuban’s proposal and stated that

Page 6
“neither side seems to be able to tell if the other side actually wants to make a deal.” Wasserman

then countered Cuban’s offer, which Cuban rejected the same day, citing, among other things,

comparisons to other NBA general managers and Nelson’s job performance. Solely because the

parties could not agree on the terms, a deal was never reached, and Nelson continued to be an at-

Will employee at the same level and with the same compensation he had been paid prior to

proposing a long-term agreement.

D. Now Unemploved, Nelson Attempts to Egtort the Mavericks bv Threatening

to“Out” a Former Team Emplovee and Publiclv Humiliate the Team Unless
He Receives $100 Million.

On November 16, 2021, exactly five months after his termination, Nelson’s attorney sent

a demand letter to the Mavericks seeking a significant cash settlement. In subsequent discussions,

Nelson made clear that the team needed to pay him at least $100 million, or he would make public

accusations that would reveal the sexual orientation of a former Mavericks executive and also

disclose other information that Nelson believed would greatly embarrass the team and numerous

individuals, including Mr. Cuban.

When a quick payout did not appear, Nelson sought to increase the pressure by filing a

Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on December 1, 2021. While Nelson attached his charge

to his Petition, he curiously failed to note that, after Defendants submitted their response, the

EEOC’s processing of Nelson’s charge terminated without action against Defendants.

Nelson continued to demand $100 million, or he would go public with the allegations

(which the NBA was already aware of). Sensitive to the potential impact of Nelson’s threatened

“outing” of an individual’s otherwise private sexual orientation, the Defendants engaged in

settlement discussions.

Page 7
 Importantly, Nelson repeatedly refused to engage in any resolution that asked him to

represent that he had not engaged in any criminal conduct relating to his allegations, his adult

nephew’s allegations, or the other subject matters above. Thus, not only did Nelson refuse to
1

reveal his contemporaneous communications regarding the allegations, but he stated that he was

unwilling to represent that his actions and communications were not criminal.

Accordingly, there was no agreement to pay any amount of money to Nelson.

Nelson’s extortionate threats leveled before and during the negotiations had their intended

effect for at least some period of time. But when Defendants refused to meet his demands, Nelson

filed his fictitious allegations in this lawsuit, which received the publicity he intended.

Nelson’s lawsuit is nothing more than the culmination of his long-running scheme to

obscure his own failures as an NBA General Manager and businessman, conceal his own personal

misconduct, and repulsively attempt to profit from threatening to “out” a former Mavericks

employee.

Hostages to Nelson’s scheme no longer, Defendants respond as follows:

II.

GENERAL DENIAL
Pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants deny generally each

and every allegation and claim in Nelson’s Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

1
The Petition is littered with references to the substance of what allegedly occurred in connection with a confidential
mediation that Defendants entered into in good faith with the expectation that it would be conducted according to the
law and appropriate ethical standards. References to mediation, or settlement discussions generally, have no place in
public pleadings. Limited reference to such circumstances are made here only to correct a false impression created
by Nelson’s Petition, which purports to rely on otherwise confidential and inadmissible communications. Defendants
reserve their rights to address the Petition’s misuse of such information.

Page 8
 III.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendants anticipate relying on the following defenses, if applicable, and if supported by
facts to be determined by appropriate discovery. In asserting these defenses, Defendants neither

expressly nor implicitly assume the burden of disproving any element of any claim for which

Plaintiff bears the burden of proof as a matter of law.

1. Plaintiff s claims are baseless, and Defendants reserve the right to file a motion

under Rule 91a or any other rule.

2. Plaintiff has no standing to sue Radical, as he was not an employee of Radical, and

Radical is not liable in the capacity in which it was sued.

3. Defendants are not responsible for any expenses or damages allegedly incurred by

Plaintiff due to Plaintiffs own acts, conduct, and/or failure to exercise reasonable care in

mitigating Plaintiff’s damages, if any.

4. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppel, waiver, and release.

5. Plaintiffs claims are barred by his own fraudulent and illegal conduct and the

doctrine of unclean hands.

6. Plaintiff has failed to meet all conditions precedent to filing suit.

7. Defendants assert the after-acquired evidence defense.

Defendants reserve the right to amend this Answer.

Page 9
 IV.

PRAYER
For the reasons stated, Defendants respectfully request judgment of the Court that Plaintiff

take nothing by this suit, and that Defendants recover all costs, together with such other and further

relief to which they may be justly entitled.

Dated: March 18, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

By: /s/ Thomas M Melshez'mer

Thomas M. Melsheimer
Texas Bar No. 13922550
[email protected]
Scott C. Thomas
Texas Bar No. 24046964
[email protected]
2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 453-6500
Facsimile: (214) 453-6400

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on March 18, 2022, I caused a genuine copy of this
document to be served on counsel of record Via electronic means.

/s/ Scott C. Thomas

Scott C. Thomas

Page 10
 Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Thomas Melsheimer on behalf of Thomas M. Melsheimer

Bar No. 13922550
[email protected]
Envelope ID: 62748085
Status as of 3/18/2022 2:42 PM CST

Associated Case Party: DONN NELSON

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Joshua J lacuone [email protected] 3/18/2022 2:14:37 PM SENT
Rogge Dunn [email protected] 3/18/2022 2:14:37 PM SENT
Tina Vanderburg - Paralegal [email protected] 3/18/2022 2:14:37 PM SENT
Firm e-Filing [email protected] 3/18/2022 2:14:37 PM SENT