With Raiders Headed to Vegas, Judge Questions Oakland's Antitrust Claims Against Team, NFL
"There's no indication about what that market would look like and under that market whether Oakland would have gotten a team," said U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero at a hearing in the case Friday.
April 17, 2020 at 03:16 PM
4 minute read
The federal judge overseeing the City of Oakland's antitrust case against the Raiders, the National Football League and its 31 other teams once again sounded skeptical of the city's claims that it suffered an antitrust injury from the team's departure to Las Vegas.
U.S. District Chief Magistrate Joseph Spero of the Northern District of California in a Zoom hearing Friday morning said that if the city's claims were to move forward it was unclear what limitations, if any, the NFL would be allowed to impose on the number of teams in the league and where they play. Spero said in opening remarks that in dismissing the earlier complaint in the case he had asked lawyers for the city at Pearson, Simon & Warshaw and Berg & Androphy to explain what would happen under a lawful, competitive market for NFL franchises. Would Oakland would have fared better? The judge said Friday that Oakland's lawyers still hadn't answered that question.
"There's no indication about what that market would look like and under that market whether Oakland would have gotten a team," Spero said.
The city sued the Raiders, the league and other franchises in late 2018, claiming 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. The city claimed the $378 million "relocation fee" that the team paid acted as "supra-competitive cartel payments" to the other teams' owners. But in dismissing the initial complaint in the case, Spero held that the relocation fee was actually a disincentive for the team to move.
Pearson Simon's Bruce Simon, arguing for the city Friday, shifted some of his arguments from earlier in the case since the city is now in the position of a city without a team rather than a city seeking to retain a team planning to move. Simon said that NFL had been found in prior cases to be acting as a cartel and that the league's revenue sharing, the requirement that three-fourths of all existing teams must approve any league expansion, and the NFL's monopoly control on its professional football product combined to create a non-competitive market. He noted that New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft had made comments to the media that he doesn't expect any further expansion of the league.
But Spero said, "the question is whether the non-expansion is lawful, not whether Kraft thinks there won't be expansion."
Daniel Asimow of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, arguing for the Raiders, said that this was "a political case in search of an antitrust theory."
"What started as a case about a team leaving now, it seems, to be a case about teams not coming," Asimow said. He said that allowing the sort of expansion or team movement that Oakland seemed to be asking for would make running the NFL, or any sports league, unworkable. He added that the plaintiffs could cite no case where a closed-membership joint venture had been forced to accept new members. He also said that the city, since it has not formally applied for an expansion team, didn't have standing to challenge the league's rules regarding expansion. He said the league has modest fees for anyone seeking to start an expansion team. "Let somebody try and see what happens and that entity has a whole lot fewer standing issues," Asimow said.
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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-57
- 2Milbank Leads Bonus Race, Rolling Out Year-End Pay News
- 3Teen Overseas Boarding Schools Face Wave of Miami Federal Lawsuits
- 4Decision of the Day: While Judge Was 'Moved' by Immigrant Couple's Efforts to Cast Votes in 2024 Election, Late Registration Denied
- 5California-Based Portal Crypto Exchange Faces Delaware Investor Class Action
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