Oakland Throws a Block at DOJ Bid to Weigh in on Antitrust Claims Over Raiders Move
Lawyers with DOJ's Antitrust Division contend that lost tax revenues don't constitute an injury to “business or property” recoverable under federal antitrust law and to find otherwise "could lead to anticompetitive effects from over-deterrence."
July 16, 2019 at 05:55 PM
4 minute read
Lawyers for the City of Oakland are crying foul that antitrust lawyers at the Department of Justice are attempting to back the National Football League in the city's lawsuit over the Raiders' upcoming relocation to Las Vegas.
The city sued the Raiders, the NFL and its remaining 31 teams late last year claiming that they conspired to “boycott” Oakland in violation of federal antitrust laws and in breach of the league's own relocation policies in signing off on the team's move to Las Vegas. In particular, the city claims the $378 million “relocation fee” that the team paid to the league's other team owners acted as “supra-competitive cartel payments.”
Lawyers from the DOJ's Antitrust Division on July 12 filed a “statement of interest” in the case on behalf of the United States taking something of a rooting position for the teams over the city. The DOJ lawyers contend that lost tax revenues—which the city alleges are at stake—don't constitute an injury to “business or property” recoverable under the Clayton Act.
“ Such expansive recovery would be contrary to the language of the statute and to precedent, and could lead to anticompetitive effects from over-deterrence,” wrote the Antitrust Division lawyers. The DOJ lawyers also contend that tax losses alone are not a proper basis for standing under the antitrust laws since those losses are “derivative of the harm to market participants who miss out on welfare-enhancing transactions.”
The government lawyers are asking U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero, who is overseeing the case, to dismiss the city's claims brought under Section 4 of the Clayton Act ”to the extent they are based on lost tax revenues.” They are not, however, taking a position regarding the city's other allegations or theories in the case.
The city's lawyers at Berg & Androphy and Pearson, Simon & Warshaw and in the City Attorney's office Monday fired back with an objection claiming that the federal government had no interest at stake in the lawsuit and that the Antitrust Division filing came too late in the game. The city's filing noted that the DOJ asked to weigh in just a week before the NFL's motion to dismiss the case is set to be argued before Spero—nearly three months after briefing on that motion closed. (The Raiders are represented by counsel from Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer in the case and Covington & Burling represents the league and its remaining teams.)
“The DOJ's position would allow professional sports teams, like the Oakland Raiders, to reap the taxpayer-financed benefits derived from the prospects of tax revenues, but then claim immunity from liability when their unlawful conduct injures the host cities that provided those benefits,” the city's lawyers wrote. “A blanket rule that a host city could not recover lost tax revenues would provide professional sports teams with a huge anti-competitive advantage, and an incentive to violate the antitrust laws that much more.”
DOJ representatives didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Pearson Simon's Michael Pearson wasn't immediately available for comment Tuesday afternoon.
Read more:
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 AllCourt rejects request to sideline San Jose State volleyball player on grounds she’s transgender
4 minute readFederal Judge Rejects Teams' Challenge to NASCAR's 'Anticompetitive Terms' in Agreement
Trending Stories
- 1Attorney-Client Privilege: Recent Informative Decisions
- 2Here We Go Again: Trump and the Coming Civil Rights Storm
- 3'The Hubris of Big Tech': Apple Hit With California Labor Lawsuit for Alleged Free Speech, Privacy Violations
- 4Litigator of the (Past) Week: A $34.7M Defamation Win For Former Walmart Truck Driver
- 5A Major Bellwether for Trans Rights?
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