"We'll Take Care of You" Does Not Equal $2.5 Million for Johnny Wilkes

When I teach vagueness, I use Baer v. Chase. The case is about an aspiring screenwriter who pitches a script for a show about the New Jersey mob to David Chase, the creator of The Sopranos.  Mr. Chase did not use the script, but he is alleged to have borrowed some ideas and, at the very least, the colorful names of two characters.  Mr. Baer alleged an expectation of payment, but the best evidence he had of an agreement was an allegation that Mr. Chase repeatedly promised, "We'll take care of you."  In the mob context, I found this statement not just vague but delightfully ambiguous.  See the conversation in Pulp Fiction between Jules (Samuel Jackson) and Vincent (John Travolta) in the elevator about "taking care" of Mia Wallace ("Uma Thurman").

Well, it turns out "We'll take care of you" is just what people say in these situations.  Johnny Wilkes, the best friend of an uncle of Kawhi Leonard (right, with fan), claims that Jerry West said those words to Mr. Wilkes in connection with the latter's efforts to help the Los Angeles Clippers persuade Mr. Leonard to join the team.  Mr. Wilkes claims that he demanded and was assured that he would be taken care of to the tune of $2.5 million, which was his estimate of a sports agent's take on such a contract. 

It appears that the Mr. Wilkes's best friend, Dennis Robertson, is an important advisor to Mr. Leonard, but Mr. Wilkes does not allege that either he or Mr. Robertson was Mr. Leonard's sports agent. After Mr. Leonard did join the team, Mr. Wilkes sued Mr. West and the Clippers, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud.  The trial court dismissed the claims, and in January, 2024, a California appellate court affirmed in Wilkes v. LA Clippers, LLC.

This case adds an agency wrinkle to the vagueness problem in Baer v. Chase.  The court provides an extended excerpt from Mr. Wilkes's testimony, and he is less than convincing about the specific promise to pay $2.5 million.  Nor is it clear what services, if any, he provided, given that Mr. Leonard appears to have been unaware fo Mr. Wilkes's role.  Another impediment is that the alleged promise came from Mr. West, but the alleged payor was Steve Ballmer, the owner of the Clippers, and Mr. Ballmer never made a promise.  The parties dispute whether Mr. West had authority to bind either Mr. Ballmer or the Clippers in this matter, but the case really turned on the court's finding that the alleged contract was fatally vague as to the services Mr. Wilkes was to perform in order to be entitled to payment.