A Federal Court Judge has issued a ruling setting the ground rules for the AMA vs. Edmondson retrial and even the most optimistic of AMA supporters will have a hard time finding any hope of vindication in the case.

Judge Lacy H. Thornburg has ruled that the jury in the retrial will determine what damages (how much money) Edmondson is due, with the guilt of the AMA already established as a given. While Edmondson’s lawyers will be allowed to present virtually their entire case regarding the damages he suffered when the AMA unilaterally took over a joint venture established between the AMA and Edmondson, the AMA lawyers will not be allowed to offer any mitigating evidence or claims of innocence.

The retrial is tentatively set to start July 9 in Asheville, North Carolina and will be open to the public, including any AMA members who want to see for themselves how the actual court proceedings compare to AMA press releases on the matter.

In his ruling, Thornburg stated that the issues the jury will decide are as follows:

A. Plaintiff’s Claim For Conversion:

1. Did the Plaintiff bring tangible business assets to the 1994 joint venture with the Defendants?

2. Did the Defendants AMA and Paradama convert any of those tangible business assets brought to the 1994 joint venture by the Plaintiff?

3. What amount of damages, if any, is the Plaintiff entitled to recover of the Defendants for the conversion of tangible business assets brought to the 1994 joint venture?


B. Plaintiff’s Claim For Unfair Competition:

1. What amount of damages, if any, is the Plaintiff entitled to recover of the Defendants as a result of the following:

a. The Defendants’ conversion of the Plaintiff’s mailing list?

b. The Defendants’ assertion of control over the Plaintiff’s interest in the 1994 joint venture and/or exclusion of him from the business, including damages, if any, flowing from Edmondson’s loss of intangible business assets such as business expectancies and good will?

c. The Defendants’ misrepresentation to the Plaintiff of their intentions to purchase his interest in the joint venture?

d. The Defendants’ marketing and promotion of professional motorcycle races in 1995 and/or thereafter as if those races were the same product which had been produced by the joint venture?

e. The Defendants’ marketing and promotion of professional motorcycle races in 1995 and/or thereafter as if those races were a continuation of the series operated by the joint venture prior to 1995?

f. The Defendants’ interference with any contractual right of the Plaintiff when he was attempting to carry on his new motorcycle racing business?

g. The Defendants’ interference with any prospective contractual rights of the Plaintiff when he was attempting to carry on his new motorcycle racing business?


C. The Plaintiff’s Claim For Punitive Damages:

1. What amount of punitive damages, if any, does the jury in its discretion award the Plaintiff for the following?

a. The conversion by Defendants AMA and Paradama of the Plaintiff’s mailing list:
i. From the Defendant AMA?
ii. From the Defendant Paradama?

b. The Defendants’ wrongful interference with a contract right between the Plaintiff and Mid-Ohio Race Track for 1995:
i. From the Defendant AMA?
ii. From the Defendant Paradama?

c. The Defendants’ wrongful interference with a contact right between the Plaintiff and Brainerd Race Track for 1995:
i. From the Defendant AMA?
ii. From the Defendant Paradama?

d. The Defendants’ wrongful interference with a contract right between the Plaintiff and Road America Race Track for 1995:
i. From the Defendant AMA?
ii. From the Defendant Paradama?

e. The Defendants’ conversion of tangible business assets brought to the 1994 joint venture by the Plaintiff:
i. From the Defendant AMA?
ii. From the Defendant Paradama?

f. The Defendants’ assertion of control over the Plaintiff’s business interest in the 1994 joint venture and/or exclusion of him from the business, including damages, if any, flowing from Edmondson’s loss of intangible business assets such as business expectancies and good will?
i. From the Defendant AMA?
ii. From the Defendant Paradama?

g. The Defendants’ misrepresentation to the Plaintiff of their intention to purchase his interest in the joint venture?
i. From the Defendant AMA?
ii. From the Defendant Paradama?

h. The Defendants’ marketing and promotion of professional motorcycle races in 1995 and/or thereafter as if those races were the same product which had been produced by the joint venture?
i. From the Defendant AMA?
ii. From the Defendant Paradama?

i. The Defendants’ marketing and promotion of professional motorcycle races in 1995 and/or thereafter as if those races were a continuation of the series operated by the joint venture prior to 1995?
i. From the Defendant AMA?
ii. From the Defendant Paradama?

j. The Defendants’ interference with any contractual right of the Plaintiff when he was attem;ting to carry on his new motorcycle racing business?
i. From the Defendant AMA?
ii. From the Defendant Paradama?

k. The Defendants’ interference with any prospective contractual right of the Plaintiff when he was attempting to carry on his new motorcycle racing business?
i. From the Defendant AMA?
ii. From the Defendant Paradama?


Some AMA sources have claimed the retrial will vindicate the AMA and result in a damage award far smaller than the award in the original trial. If that is the case, Roadracing World will report that as fact. But as a handy tip, don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Our prediction as the only media source to attend the original trial and the appeal, is that the AMA will end up being forced to pay Roger Edmondson far in excess of $3 million. Our hunch is that the magic number will be around $7 million. Stay tuned to see what actually happens.