Antitrust case against Minor League Baseball can proceed in Florida
While many people across the country are excited about the return of baseball, Jim Evans does not feel quite so kindly toward Americas pastime.
April 08, 2013 at 07:04 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
While many people across the country are excited about the return of baseball, Jim Evans does not feel quite so kindly toward America's pastime. The former umpire is proceeding with an antitrust lawsuit against Minor League Baseball in perhaps the only venue he could do so—Florida.
Most courts love baseball just as much as hot dog-eating fans do, and would readily dismiss an antitrust lawsuit against the sport, because baseball is exempt from antitrust law, according to three Supreme Court rulings. But in 1994, Florida's Supreme Court said that this exemption only applied to certain characteristics, but not the general business of baseball.
Evans' lawsuit claims that Minor League Baseball sought to eliminate competition in the training of new umpires when it started its own training academy and decertified Evans', forcing him to shut down business. In Orange County court, Judge Lisa Munyon rejected the league's motion to dismiss the suit, ruling that Evans could proceed. Though the league encouraged Munyon to adopt the broad view of baseball's antitrust exemption favored by the 11th Circuit, she stuck with the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation, writing that she did not have to “blindly follow the opinions of lower federal courts, when the Florida court believes the federal decisions to be poorly reasoned.”
Read more at Thomson Reuters.
For more InsideCounsel stories about baseball, see below:
While many people across the country are excited about the return of baseball, Jim Evans does not feel quite so kindly toward America's pastime. The former umpire is proceeding with an antitrust lawsuit against Minor League Baseball in perhaps the only venue he could do so—Florida.
Most courts love baseball just as much as hot dog-eating fans do, and would readily dismiss an antitrust lawsuit against the sport, because baseball is exempt from antitrust law, according to three Supreme Court rulings. But in 1994, Florida's Supreme Court said that this exemption only applied to certain characteristics, but not the general business of baseball.
Evans' lawsuit claims that Minor League Baseball sought to eliminate competition in the training of new umpires when it started its own training academy and decertified Evans', forcing him to shut down business. In Orange County court, Judge Lisa Munyon rejected the league's motion to dismiss the suit, ruling that Evans could proceed. Though the league encouraged Munyon to adopt the broad view of baseball's antitrust exemption favored by the 11th Circuit, she stuck with the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation, writing that she did not have to “blindly follow the opinions of lower federal courts, when the Florida court believes the federal decisions to be poorly reasoned.”
Read more at Thomson Reuters.
For more InsideCounsel stories about baseball, see below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 3Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: Big Law Profits Vs. Political Values
- 5Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250