Jeanie Buss takes Lakers share-sale fight back to Los Angeles court, seeking to halt siblings’ vote

Jeanie Buss and members of the Buss family are again litigating a fight over the remaining Lakers shares held within the family, according to a new filing that returns the dispute to Los Angeles Superior Court. Buss, represented by attorney Adam Streisand, asked the court to block what the petition characterizes as an improper vote by her five siblings to sell the family’s remaining interest in the team. The action is part of a longer-running saga about how family ownership is managed and who has authority to pursue a sale.

At the center of the case is the Buss family’s remaining 17.8% share of the Los Angeles Lakers, an ownership stake that carries real leverage in any potential change of control. The petition describes the vote as lacking proper legal grounding and seeks court intervention before any transfer or final disposition of the shares can occur. The filing places the dispute squarely within the court system rather than leaving it to private governance mechanisms.

The petition also frames the dispute in personal and governance terms, alleging misconduct by the siblings involved in the vote and contesting the process they used. While the merits of those allegations are for the court to determine, the filing indicates Jeanie Buss is challenging both the legality of the vote and the surrounding intent behind it, according to the reporting that accompanied the petition.

From an NBA business perspective, family ownership fights are not uncommon, but they can be unusually consequential when they involve a significant minority stake in a high-profile franchise with complex corporate and governance structures. A court decision could clarify who controls the next step for the shares and whether the family can act collectively or only through specific approvals. For the Lakers, any prolonged uncertainty can become part of the broader narrative around stability in ownership decision-making.

For now, the case remains at the petition-and-motion stage, with the court’s role focused on whether it should halt the vote and, later, how the underlying ownership and voting issues should be resolved. Jeanie Buss’s filing indicates that at least one side believes the timetable and mechanics of the sale effort are legally flawed enough to justify immediate judicial review.

What to watch next is whether the court grants the requested relief to stop the vote pending further proceedings. Equally important will be how the siblings opposing the petition respond, and whether additional filings address corporate governance details tied to how the Buss family shares are managed and whether any internal rules were followed. The outcome could shape the pace and possibility of a broader ownership transition, or at minimum the conditions under which one can occur.