Mark Cuban has some questions about how the majority owners of the Dallas Mavericks struck a deal to buy the Valley View Mall property — the proposed site of the team’s new home — and how that deal may impact his contractual rights. And he’s asking a judge in Dallas County to give him the chance to find some answers.
In a Rule 202 petition — where parties ask a court to order certain discovery to determine if there are grounds for a lawsuit — filed in Dallas County District Court this week, two entities affiliated with the billionaire and former longtime owner of the Dallas Mavericks asked the court to let them depose a corporate representative of Arena Development Intermediate, the entity created by current Mavericks ownership to pursue the new arena deal.
“This Court has personal jurisdiction over ADI because it purposefully availed itself of the benefits of doing business in the state of Texas by entering an option contract for the purchase of the Valley View Mall, located in Dallas, Texas,” the petition reads. “The petitioners’ potential claims arise from and relate to these purposeful contacts; specifically, ADI’s pursuit of business opportunities related to the Dallas Mavericks and their new arena may improperly interfere with petitioners’ existing Texas contracts and related rights.”
The Lawbook obtained a copy of the petition, dated July 6, filed by Radical Hoops Ltd. and Radical Mavericks II LLC. The filing includes seven requests for production, seeking the following:
- All agreements related to the Valley View option
- All agreements related to the construction of a new arena, including design, development, financing, joint venture and partnership agreements
- All non-privileged communications between Arena Development Intermediate, or ADI, and Seritage Growth Properties — which in June 2026 inked a $51 million option purchase-and-sale contract under which ADI agreed to buy a portion of the Valley View Mall property — regarding the Valley View option,
- All non-privileged communication between ADI and Seritage Growth Properties regarding the construction of a new arena,
- Documents that would identify the officers and members of ADI, and
- Financial records related to the Valley View option.
The petition also includes a declaration from Mark Cuban where he explains that, in 2019, he began having conversations with Patrick Dumont regarding efforts to legalize gambling in Texas while also publicly voicing his support for Las Vegas Sands’ efforts to realize that goal. In addition to serving as the majority owner and governor of the Mavericks, Dumont is now the CEO of Las Vegas Sands. But at the time of the discussions with Cuban, according to his LinkedIn, he served as the company’s executive vice president and chief financial officer.
Cuban, who still maintains a minority ownership stake in the NBA franchise, wrote that when he decided to sell the Mavericks he had “relatively brief negotiations” with Dumont before they reached an agreement.
“As part of that negotiation, I was to retain control over basketball operations, while Dumont would handle business operations and real estate and casino development,” the declaration reads. “We had a handshake deal to this effect during the NBA Tech Summit at the NBA All Star Weekend in Las Vegas.”
According to Cuban, that handshake deal was reiterated in emails and verbally in the presence of Dumont, Miriam Adelson, an unnamed NBA owner and Mavericks employees.
“Dumont did not fulfill his end of this agreement, and I did not retain control over basketball operations,” he wrote. “Instead, former General Manager Nico Harrison was put in charge, leading to the trade of Luka Dončić. When I discussed this with Dumont over the phone, he told me: ‘Why would I give you control of a $4 billion asset?’”
Cuban told the court in his declaration that he again engaged Dumont in conversation “when discussions with the Dallas Stars related to the American Airlines Center reached a boil,” and in those talks Dumont told him “that he had instructed his lawyers to review the agreements related to the American Airlines Center to find anything that could be used as leverage over the Stars.”
“As a result of the lawsuit, my interest in the American Airlines Center also increased,” Cuban wrote.
In the Rule 202 petition, Radical Hoops and Radical Mavericks told the court that the Dumont-spearheaded lawsuit against the Stars “further clarified his adversarial business practices.”
“Ultimately, the Texas Business Court agreed with the Mavericks,” the petition reads. “Although Dumont won again, an unintended consequence of his crusade was that Cuban’s ownership interest in the American Airlines Center also increased.”
The next page of the petition, under a subhead that reads “Mark Cuban retains the right to participate in certain business opportunities” is entirely redacted.
It goes on to tell the court that Radical Hoops and Radical Mavericks have not been looped in on the pursuit of the Valley View Mall opportunity and alleges that ADI “has continued pursuing opportunities related to the new arena at Valley View Mall without notifying petitioners, including attempting to purchase the Chuck E. Cheese that abuts the Valley View Mall.”
“This nondisclosure is consistent with Dumont’s adversarial business practices and history of failing to uphold his end of the bargain,” the petition reads.
Radical Hoops and Radical Mavericks told the court it is still unclear how involved ADI is in the new arena deal, what its corporate structure is and who is the ultimate owner of the company.
The petition asks the court to set a hearing on the filing, and after that hearing takes place it requests the court issue an order requiring:
- ADI’s corporate representative to give an oral deposition, and
- ADI to produce the requested documents within 15 days.
Radical Hoops and Radical Mavericks told the court time is of the essence regarding the requests it has made. In part because ADI’s option is active and has “converted to a month-to-month structure under which ADI makes escalating non-refundable payments until it either closes or walks away.”
“Once the transaction closes, unwinding it will be difficult or impossible,” the petition reads. “Petitioners will be left with only a damages remedy for a unique investment opportunity in which they were contractually entitled to participate.”
Another reason to grant the requested relief, Radical argued, is because it cannot file suit “without knowing whom to sue.”
“Without presuit discovery, petitioners face a Hobson’s choice: watch a complicated transaction close in violation of their rights, then attempt to unwind it after the fact, or seek injunctive relief without the basic information needed to obtain it,” the petition reads. “Petitioners should not be forced to choose between suing the wrong parties without adequate factual support and watching the transaction close while their contractual rights are disregarded, and perhaps irreparably and unilaterally revoked.”
“Rule 202 exists precisely to prevent this result.”
Counsel for Cuban declined to comment Thursday.
Cuban is represented by John Zavitsanos, Jason McManis, Warren McCarty, Justin Kenney, Emily Adler, Matthew Micik and Anders Huizenga of Ahmad Zavitsanos & Mensing and Collin D. Kennedy of Hanshaw Kennedy Hafen.