LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8
INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; ROGERS BASEBALL LLC; PARTNERS ATHLETICS THE CINCINNATI LLC; REDS, HOUSTON LTD.; BASEBALL CLUB OF SEATTLE, LLP; COLORADO ROCKIES BASEBALL CLUB, LTD.; LOUIS ST. CARDINALS, LLC; BASEBALL LP; CHICAGO WHITE S RED SOX BASEBALL CLUB L.P.; ANGELS BASEBALL ASSOCIATES LLC; BOSTON MIAMI MARLINS, L.P.; FRANCISCO SAN KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP.; BASEBALL, doing LEAGUE business asMAJOR BASEBALL, an un OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF Similarly Situated, Individually and onBehalf of AllThose PADILLA,JORGE SERGIO MIRANDA, JEFFREY DOMINGUEZ, and onbehalf of all thosesimilarly situated Attorneys for Facsimile: Telephone: Chicago, Illinois 606 33 North LaSalle Street, 3200 Suite LAW OFFICES BRIAN DAVID Facsimile: Telephone: San Francisco, California 94111 Street, 1807 155 Jackson Suite LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL KORNHAUSER SAMUEL KORNHAUSER, Esq.,California Bar No. 083528 2014 INC.;CO., L.P.; PADRES DIEGO SAN L.P.; CLEVELAND INDIANS BASEBALL CLEVELAND INDIANS BASEB BLUE BASEBALL JAYS PARTNERSHIP; Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page1of35 - 12 - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) NOR
THERN DISTRICT OF DISTRICT THERN CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION all Plaintiffs,individually ALLAN HUBER “BUD” SELIG; (312) 346 (847) 778 (415) 981 (415) 981
, Esq., OF BRIAN DAVID
v. incorporated association and
10
Illinois No.0582468 ARDC
CIRILO CRUZ - - - - 8469 7528 7616 6281 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT STATES UNITED Plaintiffs,
ALL CO.,
OX
,
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
JURY TRIALDEMANDED OF FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS ACTION CLASS Case No.
3:14 - cv ANTI TRUST LAWS ANTI TRUST
- 5349
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
BASEBALLBREWERS CLUB, L.P. BASEBALL CLUB, INC.; MILWAUKEE HOLDINGS, LLC; MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL, LLC; CHICAGO BASEBALL B BAY BASEBALL RAYS LTD.; RANGERS YORKNEW YANKEES P’SHIP; TAMPA INC.; PITTSBURGH BASEBALL P’SHIP; PHILLIES L.P.; PITTSBURGH BASEBALL, BALTIMORE ORIOLES, L.P.; THE L.P.; BALTIMORE ORIOLES, INC.; LEAGUE BASEBALL CLUB, INC.; AZPB L.P.;METS ATLANTA NATIONAL DODGERS HOLDING STERLING CO.; DODGERS, LLC; LOS ANGELES DETROIT TIGERS, INC.; LOS ANGELES NATIONALS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC; MINNESOTA TWINS, LLC; WASHINGTON BASEBALLPADRES CLUB, L.P.; 2014 ASEBALL LLC; EXPRESS, RANGERS Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page2of35 - 12 - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB)
Defendants.
,
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8
X. IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF VIII. COUNT THREE VII. COUNT TWO VI. COUNT ONE V. IV. III. II. I. 2014
Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page3of35
- 12
- 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Damages (Injunctive Relief (Damages theSherman of Violation for IV. III. II. I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS B. A. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ACTION ALLEGATIONS CLASS 2. 1. PARTIES NATURE AND BACKGROUND OF SUIT
Plaintiffs Have Suffered Antitrust Injury Have Suffered Plaintiffs AntitrustBaseball” The Exemption of the“Business for Minor Leaguers’ Uniform, Contracts Adhesive MLB of Business The Venue Federal Jurisdiction Defendants Plaintiffs
...... -
...... Violation of Section 1 of The Sherman The Section 1of of Act)Violation
OCB)
......
......
...... -
......
Violation of Section 2 of The Sherman The Section 2of of Act)Violation
...... TABLE OFTABLE CONTENTS
......
......
......
......
...... i ......
......
Act, ......
...... –
...... Monopoly, 15 U.S.C. §2) 15U.S.C. Monopoly, ......
......
......
......
......
......
...... 32 30 28 28 27 27 26 26 24 20 13 12 12 12 12 12
9 4 3 3 1
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8
imposed leaguers fear retaliation by theDefendants. represent the interests ofminorleaguers. by theDefendants. The agree contractual mobility. clause restrict contracts thatallow players’ collude commodity: League Baseball (“MLB”). “MLB”), for violationsofthe 30 themselves and theclass ofleaguers minor they represent, against thedefendant Padilla 2014 1 leaguers
The term The “Defendant Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page4of35 - m 12
- ajor 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v. ment 4. 3. 2. 1. 5. preserves
, s This class actionbrought is by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs allege as follows:
their ability tonegotia
an
salaries, the if they to violate wage l eague , even though they comprise the overwhelming majority ofbaseball players employed d
Cirilo Cruz, Cruz, Cirilo minor leagueminor professional system Unlike major leaguers, minorleaguers have nounion In order tomonopolize M The Defendants Efforts to unionize minor leaguersEfforts minor unionize to have
challeng
b MLB’s LB openly collude aseball clubs andtheofMajor Commissioner League Baseball (co
s” applies to all defendantsall namedto applies s”in this Complaint. federal s
OCB) MLB teams retain to I.
,
for fear Major League Baseball Players’ Association (“
ed minor leagueminor
minor leagueminor baseball players (“ antitrust
cartel inserted a (known provision as thereserve clause) intoplayers’ the system NATURE AND BACKGROUND OF SUIT te with other te
Sherman Act andClayton Act (“antitrust laws”).
it 1
are either members ofor govern the cartel knownas w
ould laws. s
for seven (7) years
on theworking conditions for thedevelopment chief ofits . system ofartificially lowsalaries and nonexistent
minor leaguersminor
baseball players
jeopardize
M 1 ams for their baseball services,
inor leaguers are Sergio Miranda, Jeffrey Domin their , restra
been unsuccessful because minor
the contractual rights players to (“minor leaguers”) car m eer inor in
s
and depress afraid and potentialtobecome major l eaguers”), on behalf of
or collective bargaining to MLBPA challenge .
minor leagueminor MLB routinely which
”) s guez, , th
does not the reserve e cartel of llectively
Major MLB Jorge and
-
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
antitrust violations. recover treble the additional c through a MLB’s periods such as instructional leagues and winter training. week during spring training. Similarly, theDefendants notpay do salaries during other training training, even though theDefendants require leaguers’minor wor minimum championship season. They receive noovertime pay, and instead despite routinely working §§1and15 U.S.C. 2. suppressed minorleaguers’ leagueminor professional baseball player market, and monopolization. conspiracies torestrain including competition, competition for employment, group boycotts, time. since 1976 negotiate with other teams to,wages,including,conditions, limited butnot contract terms, MLB continues toactively and openly collude onmany aspects leaguers’ ofminor working 2014 B ¶VI, B; 2
See See Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page5of35 - 12 10. Exhibit A - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) 6. 9. 8. 7. I nflation has risen by more than400percent
violations oftheviolations antitrust§§1,2,and laws, 15U.S.C. 15. .
n international class action onbehalf of leag minor
wage during thechampionship season.
while
attached hereto and incorporated herein incorporated and hereto attached M T Through their The federal This suit seeksThis suit recoup to thedamages sustained he Defendants have conspired topay nowages at allfor significant periods of inor leaguers minor leaguers’minor salaries have, onaverage, increased only 75percent since that
k.
Most T
he Defendants notpay do leaguers minor their salaries during spring between . antitrust laws were
M compensation minor leaguersminor earn between $3,000and $7,500for the entire year
collective exercise of ompensation they ajor leaguers’ salaries have increased by mor
are powerless combat to thecollusive power of theMLB cartel.
50 and 70hours per week ,
in violation of in violation 2 minor leaguersminor tooften work over
, Major League Rules Major (“MLR”) , At enacted toprotect should
Defendants have eliminated competition and over that same period. time
mo nopoly
have received absent Defendants’
2 sections 1and 2of theSherman Act,
ue professional baseball players to
during theroughly five power by leaguers minor as a result of and their ability to , competition andprevent
It seeks recover to damages routinely receive less than
and restraint oftrade inthe e than2,000percent tachment ¶ VII, UPC 3,
fifty hours per work for and - month month
,
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
ex assigned toarookie ball club Florida in and made $3, per week inspring training and extended spring training. and 2009from March 1to attended Cruz Houston Astrosin2006.Mr. spring training inKissimee, Florida in2007,2008, of about 50hoursper week. employment as aleaguer minor Florida during 2012. while working a During Mr.Dominguez’s employment was assigned toNew Orleans, Louisiana. He isarepresentative plaintiff onbehalf of the FloridaJupiter and subsequently Florida. toJacksonville, In 201 subsequently toTacom defendant earned lessthan plaintiff onbehalf of the 2011, Mr.Miranda’s contract was assigned Alabama. toHuntsville, He i defendant TheChicago subsequently Chicago Sox. Sox White White assignedcontract his the to 2014 week from March training in2009 Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page6of35 cess of50hours per week during those seasons. - 12 11. 15. 14. 13. 12. - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB)
1.
Seattle Mariners. In 2010,Mr.Dominguez’s contract was assigned toTennessee and Milwaukee Brewers. In 2010,Mr.Miranda played inBrevard County, Florida. In T Plaintiff and class representative, was Cruz, signed Cirilo by the Plaintiff and class representative, Jorge Padilla, Plaintiff and class representative, Jeffrey Dominguez, was dr Plaintiff and class representative, Sergio Miranda, was drafted by Plaintiffs n average ofabout 50hou his suit seeks enjoinhis suit to $10,000 per year while working a and
1 , 2009
received nosalary thatyear even though he worked about 60hoursper He isarepresentative plaintiff onbehalf of the a, Washington.
Class.
April 5buthedidnotreceive a salary. to April1
, he earned lessthan During Mr.Miranda’s employment , 2009
II. In 2011,Mr.Dominguez’s contract was assigned to as aleaguer minor Defendants
rs per week. .
3 Mr. Cruz Mr. Cruz
PARTIES n average ofabout 50hoursper week.
Mr. Cruz w Mr. Cruz from $10,000 pe 300 in played league minor baseb
continuing their , he earned lessthan In 2007and was 2008,Mr.Cruz
salary as released following spring played league minor baseball in r year while working a 2, Mr.Dominguez’s contract
workedMr. Cruz 60hours per year despite working as aleaguer minor Class s a representative
antitrust violations . During afted by the $10,000 per year defendant
the all inFlorida Mr. defendant n aver , he Padilla
Class.
age in .
’s
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
4 3 terms hiring, contract closelyleaguers’ employment,and minor including, the manyto controls central aspects employment the concerning of players. league policies guidelines, minor and involvingpractices leaguers minor union league major the with Serving thiscapacity, in of Mr.Commissioner Seli Baseball. wages,contracts, of periods wage payment nonpayment and many aspect fundamental T commo and thirtythe of doingCommissioner of business Baseball, comprised as MLB, association unincorporated isan of about 6 employment during 2012.He isarepresentative plaintiff onbehalf of the 2014 Attachment(salary 3 form by therequiring Commissioner);approval MLR(giving 4 Commissioner power to (requiringapprova employment),(payment (grantingVII XXIII Commissioner salaries), of XXVI right suspend the contract), to 6 5
See See 2. MLC§ Art. II See he Defendants’ cartel has developed a unified constitution and unified rules to closely unified to and rules unified hasa constitution developed control Defendants’he cartel MLCArt. II Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page7of35 - 12 20. 19. 18. 17. 16. MLRAttachment League Minor Uniform 3, ¶¶ the ofconditions(describing Player Contract (“UPC”) VI League Constitution Major Exhibit1. (“MLC”), B, § Art. II - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) 2. Defendant
0 hours per week. n control over Franchises the n control
§ 2. § as aleaguer minor Mr. “Chief is the Officer Commissioner Executive The of League Major Baseball.” Allan Huber“Bud” Selig. MLB employ) employed to continues (and/or the of The Office Defendants
l bythe Commissioner have effect); to thefor contract
Selig chief forming agent to isfor the also comes owners whenit the labor Major LeagueMajor (“the clubs Franchises”) baseball
and mobility.and Mr. Selig chief bargaining is the agent for owners during the negotiations
s of leaguers’ employment, minor including, the .
5
, he earned lessthan$10,000 per ye
Commissioner Baseball, d/b/a MLB. of .
6 Mr. g former is ownerof the MLB an Franchise.
Selig . All dobusinessAll as MLB. Since 1998, Allan Huber“Bud” Selig 1998,Allan Since has served as the often 4
directs the development of development the MLB’sdirects rules,
of compensation
the Plaintiffthe Class of league minor Class see also, e.g. also, see
. . During 3 ar while working a
MLB has unified operation inter alia inter , Addendum , MLR C to The OfficeThe of the . Mr. Selig o Mr.
Cruz , hiring, ’s versees inter alia inter n avera
4
rs ge .
, LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
suspend players); MLR 3(e) (requiring all contracts to be approved by the Commissioner); approved be to suspend (requiringcontracts players); all (giving MLR MLR3(e) 14 the amateuroversee oftheone chief draft, avenues ofhiring p Sox Red the MLBan Franchise. of As League member Major a actingjointly Baseball, onits own and behalf, similarly employees, situated employees and of the onitsownSan Francisco employ)and behalf, to the Giantsemployed continue Plaintiffs, (and/or Francisco MLB is an Giants”) Franchise. As member a Florida the Marlins franchise. to interest name the employ) to employed continue Plaintiffs, (and/or similarly employees, situated employees and of ofAs League member Major a Baseba employees,situated employees and of the o Royals”) MLB is an Franchise. of As League member Major a actingjointly Baseball, onits and collectively referredto and “Franchiselawsuit as the Defendants”: systemdevelopmental for first the time. of system a implementation suppress to signing bonuses for leaguersMLB’s entering minor salary Commissioner’s 2014 7 baseball). players anon Ineligibleplace List misconduct, takeany for to or disciplinary other inaction interest the of best Commissionerdeny retirement);for (giving or an MLR application the 15 poweraccept to Commissioner p
wn Kansas behalf, the City Royals employ) to employed continue Plaintiffs, (and/or similarly MLC Art. II §§ 8, 9. 8, MLC§§ Art. II Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page8of35 - 12 Class 21. 26. 25. 24. 23. 22. 27. - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) in 2012. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the Miami Marlins is the successor Marlins isin the Miami 2012.Plaintiffsthe in that believe informed and are
. The Miami Marlins were known and operated as the Floridachanging as the Marlinsuntil its knownoperated Marlinswere and Miami . The of baseball).employed (and/or continue to employ) to of continue Plaintiffs, baseball).employed (and/or similarly situated The MLB of byThe Commissioner the Baseball owners vote. elect a San Francisco Giants San Francisco Marlins.Miami Kansas Royals. City Defendants.Franchise Upon in Boston Red Sox. Sox. Red Boston
.
formation and belief, Mr. Selig also had direct involvement in the involvement belief,Mr. the formation and in Selig direct had also
Miami Marlins,L.P.Miami MLB is “Miamian Marlins”) (d/b/a Franchise. Boston Red Sox Baseball ClubL.P. SoxBoston Red Baseball “B (d/b/a Kansas City Royals “Kansas Corp.(d/b/a City Baseball . ll, actingjointlyll, Marlins onitsownMiami and behalf, the San Francisco Baseball AssociatesSan FranciscoLLC Baseball “San (d/b/a The below named MLB named below The franchises d are
Class 5
.
Class layers);(giving MLR13 Commissioner the power to of League Major actingjointly Baseball, .
oston Red Sox”)oston is Red 7 efendants this in
They pay also the ower to
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
employees, employees and of the employed Athletics (and/o Oakland the MLBan Franchise. of As League member Major a actingjointly Baseball, onits own and behalf, similarly situat own Los behalf, the Angeles Angels employ) to of employed continue Anaheim Plaintiffs, (and/or MLB is an Anaheim”) Franchise. of As League member Major a actingjointly Baseball, onits and employees of the Houston Astros employ) to employed continue Plaintiffs, (and/or similarly employees, situated and MLB Franchise. of As League member Major a acting jointly Baseball, onitsown and behalf, the employ) Plaintiffs, similarly employees, situated employees and of the actingjointly IndiansBaseball, onitsownCleveland to and behalf, the employed continue (and/or “Cleveland Co,Inc., Indians”) MLB (d/b/a isBaseball an Franchise. of As member Majo a employeesand of the Chicago White Sox employed c (and/or MLB Franchise. of As League member Major a actingjointly Baseball, onitsown and behalf, the employees, employees and of the Jays Blue employ) Toronto to behalf, employed the continue Plaintiffs, (and/or similarly Jays”) MLB is an Franchise. of As League member Major a actingjointly Baseball, onitsown and employees, employees and/or of the 2014 employ) to employed Mariners continue Plaintiffs, (and/or Seattle similarly employees, situated MLB Franchise. of As League member Major a actingjointly Baseball, onitsown and Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page9of35 - 12 28. 32. 31. 30. 29. 34. 33. - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB)
ed employees,ed employees and of the Toronto Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. of Los Angels Angeles Houston Astros. Indians. Cleveland White Sox. Chicago Seattle Mariners. Seattle Athletics. Oakland Class Class .
Blue Jays. Jays. Blue
.
Houston Baseball Partners LLC Partners Houston Baseball “Houston (d/b/a Astros” Baseball Club of Seattle, LLP Clubof Seattle, Baseball is an Mariners”) “Seattle (d/b/a Class Class Athletics InvestmentAthletics Group, LLC is “Oakland Athletics”) (d/b/a Cleveland IndiansCo.,L.P.,Cleveland Baseball Indians Cleveland and Rogers Blue Jays Baseball Partnership (d/b/a “Toronto Blue Rogers “Toronto Blue Jays (d/b/a Blue Partnership Baseball Chicago White Sox Ltd. “Chicago (d/b/a White Sox”) is an Class . . r continue to employ) to r continue Plaintiffs, similarly situated ontinue to employ) to ontinue Plaintiffs, similarly employees, situated
.
6
Angels LP Baseball “Los (d/b/a Angeles Angels of Class .
Class .
behalf, the behalf, the ) is an ) is an situated situated r League
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
Plaintiffs, similarly employees, situated employees and of the jointly onitsownWashington and behalf, the employ) to employed Nationals continue (and/or “Washington MLB is an Nationals”) Franchise. of As member M a employeesand of the employ) to TwinsMinnesota employed continue Plaintiffs, (and/or similarly employees, situated Franchise. of As League member Major a actingjointly Baseball, onitsown and behalf, th Plaintiffs, similarly employees, situated employees and of the jointly onitsown San Diego and behalf, the Padres employed (and/o “San(d/b/a Diego MLB is Padres”) an Franchise. of As League member Major a acting Baseball, employees,situated emplo and employ) to employed Rockies continue Plaintiffs,own Colorado (and/or behalf, the similarly MLB is an Rockies”) Franchise. of As League member Major a actingjointly Baseball, onits and employeesand of the St. Louis employ) to employed continue Cardinals Plaintiffs, (and/or similarly employees, situated MLB Franchise. of As League member Major a actingjointly Baseball, onitsown and behalf, the employees of the employ) to Reds employed continue Plaintiffs, (and/or Cincinnati similarly employees, situated and Franchise. of As League member Major a B employeesand of the 2014 employ) to employed continue Plaintiffs, (and/or similarly employees, situated employees and of ofAs League member Major a actingjointly Tigers Baseball, onitsownDetroit and behalf, the Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page10of35 - 12 35. 39. 38. 37. 36. 41. 40. - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB)
Cincinnati Reds. Reds. Cincinnati Minnesota Twins.Minnesota Padres.San Diego Colorado Rockies. LouisSt. Cardinals. Detroit Tigers.Detroit Washington Nationals. Class Class Class Class .
. . .
yees of the Detroit Tigers, “DetroitTigers”) Inc. i Detroit (d/b/a The Cincinnati Reds, LLC Cincinnati MLB is an Reds”) The “Cincinnati (d/b/a Minnesota Twins,Minnesota LLC “Minnesota MLB is Twins”) an (d/b/a Colorado Rocki Colorado Padres L.P., San Diego Club,L.P. the and Padres Baseball St. Louis LLC Cardinals, “St. (d/b/a Louis is an Cardinals”) Washington Club,LLC Baseball Nationals (d/b/a Class aseball, actingjointlyaseball, onitsown and behalf, the 7
.
es Baseball Club,Ltd. “Colorado es Baseball (d/b/a Class Class ajor Leagueajor acting Baseball, . .
r continue to employ) to r continue s MLB an Franchise. e
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
employee employ) to employed Phillies continue Plaintiffs, (and/or Philadelphia similarly situated Franchise. of As League member Major a acting jointly Baseball, onitsown and behalf, the similarly employees, situated employees and of the employ) to employed Orioles continue Plaintiffs, (and/or onitsownBaltimore and behalf, the “Baltimo employees, employees and of the employ) to employedArizona Diamondbacks continue Plaintiffs, (and/or similarly situated Franchise. of As League member Major a act Baseball, employees, employees and of the own beha Braves”) MLB is an Franchise. of As League member Major a actingjointly Baseball, onits and the e to employed continue (and/or ofAs League member Major a actingjointly Baseball, onitsownNew and behalf,York the Mets employ)to Plaintiffs, simila actingjointlyBaseball, onitsownLos and behalf, the Angeles Dodgers employed continue (and/or Holding “Los Co.,(d/b/a Angeles Dodgers”) MLB is an Franchise. of As League member Major a the 2014 onitsown Pittsburghand behalf, the Pira “Pittsburgh MLB is an Pirates”) Franchise. of As League member Major a actingjointly Baseball, Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page11of35 - 12 Class Class 42. 46. 45. 44. 43. 48. 47. - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB)
. . re Orioles”) is an MLB is an Orioles”) re Franchise. of As League member Major a actingjointly Baseball, lf, the Atlanta Braves employ) to lf, employed Atlanta the continue Plaintiffs, (and/or similarly situated s, employees and of the
Los Dodgers. Angeles Baltimore Orioles. Baltimore Arizona Diamondbacks. Braves. Atlanta Mets. York New Pittsburgh Pirates. Pirates. Pittsburgh Phi Philadelphia
rly employees, situated employees and of the mploy) Plaintiffs, similarly employees, situated employees and of Atlanta National League “Atlanta National Club,Inc. (d/b/a Atlanta Baseball Sterling Mets L.P. “New (d/b/a YorkMLB is Mets”) an Franchise. llies. llies. Class Class Class Baltimore Orioles, Inc., and Baltimore Orioles, L.P., Orioles, Inc., Orioles, Baltimore and (d/b/a Baltimore Pittsburgh Inc., Pittsburgh and P’ship, Baseball, (d/b/a Baseball The Phillies L.P. (d/b/a “Philadelphia Phillies”) is an MLB L.P. is an Phillies Phillies”) The “Philadelphia (d/b/a Los Angeles D . . . AZPB L.P. MLB “Arizona is an (d/b/a Diamondbacks”)
tes employed (and/or continue to employ) to employedtes continue Plaintiffs, (and/or 8
Class odgers, LLC, Los and Angeles Dodgers ing jointly onitsown and behalf, the .
Class .
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
follows: other league minor professional baseball players 23 employees,situated employees and of the on itsown “Texas Rangers”) MLB is an Franchise. of As League member Major a actingjointly Baseball, and employ) to continue (and/or LeagueMajor actingjointly Brewersemployed Baseball, onitsown Milwaukee and behalf, the Club,L.P., MLB isBrewers Baseball an “Milwaukee Brewers”) (d/b/a Franchise. of As member a employees of the employ)Chicago Cubsto employed continue Plaintiffs, (and/or similarly employees, situated and Franchise. of As League member Major a actingjointly Baseball, onitsown and behalf, the employeesand of the BayTampa Rays employ) to employed continue Plaintiffs, (and/or similarly employees, situated MLB Franchise. As memb a employees, employees and of the employ) to New Yorkemployedthe Yankees continue Plaintiffs, (and/or similarly situated MLBan Franchise. of As League member Major a actingjoin Baseball, similarly employees, situated employees and of the 2014 Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page12of35 (b)1, - 12 49. 53. 52. 51. 50. 54. - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB)
(“UPC”) who worked, work, will and/or continue A (b)
ll minor leaguers minor ll employed by Defendants under uniform player con
behalf, the Texas Rangers employ) to Texas employedbehalf, the continue Plaintiffs, (and/or similarly 2 ,
and b New York Yankees. Yankees. York New Texas Rangers. Brewers. Milwaukee Cubs. Chicago Tampa Rays. Bay Plaintiffs bring the Class (3) ofthe Federal Procedure, of Rules Civil onbeh Class .
I . II
er ofer League Major actingjointly Baseball, onitsown and behalf, the
Plaintiffs, similarly employees, situated employees and of the .
Chicago Baseball Holdings,Chicago Baseball LLC “Chicago (d/b/a C Rangers Baseball Express,Rangers LLC, Baseball LLC, Rangers and Baseball, (d/b/a Tampa BayTampa Rays Ltd. Bay “Tampa Baseball (d/b/a Rays”) is an Class CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS CLASS ir antitrust claims New York Yankees Partnership (d/b/a “New is (d/b/a New York YorkPartnership Yankees”) Yankees Milwaukee .
Class 9
.
Brewers Baseball Club, Inc., and Milwaukee Club,Inc., Milwaukee and Brewers Baseball
similarly situated.The Class
as
a class action .
s
to work asleaguers minor
under Rule23(a) and Rule tly onitsown and behalf, alf of themselves and all
class
is defined tracts ubs”) is an MLBubs”) is an for
Class as
.
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
predominate over any questions affecting competent andexperienced inclass action litigation, including (depressed compensation) Class compensation as alleged herein. and Plaintiffs the and depress compensation league paid minor to players, in depressed Plaintiffs and themembers ofthe Plaintiffs are informed and believe tha impracticable. theexact While number of members Class attime, isunknowntoPlaintiffs this geographically dispersed league minor andPadilla, Cruz. Cirilo 2014 Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page13of35 - 12 58. 57. 56. 55. 59. - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB)
because they possessthe same interests and suffered thesame the any league minor team affiliated withaFranchise Defendant timelysubmit and proper requests for from exclusion the Class. of the Court’s immediat controlling interest Defendants. in are excluded Also theCourtand any members whohas,individual orwho at any during time theclass period has had, a Class (7) years and prevented them from negotiating uniform player contracts which assigned themtoonemajor league franchise for seven (a) whether Defendants
compensation practices arising outofDefe
four years before thefiling ofthisaction
are Defendants andtheir officers, directors, assigns, and successors, or any ,
Plaintiffs will fairlyPlaintiffs will and adequately protect the interests ofall members of the Plaintiffs’ claims are typical ofthe claims ofthe other members of The The Representatives Class omn usin o lw n fc eit s o l mmes f the of members all to as exist fact and law of questions Common as
a result ofDefendants’ antitrust violations. P roposed consisting Class, oftho
as
the other e family, counsel for plaintiffs, as well as persons who conspired oragreed toforce league all minor players tosign Class Class
t r cla
s,
it is it were
is so numerousis so ss members. have Plaintiffs retained counsel have sustainedtypes similar ofdamages only are Sergio Miranda, Jeffrey Dominguez, Jorge
10 in the
and are
indiv
thousands. idual members of theClass and
usands ofsimilarly situated, ndants’ subject thesame to or similar or contracting withother competing
its resolution. Excluded from resolution. the Excluded its
that it
violation ofviolation thefederal
conspiracy torestrain competition
antitrust makes
types ofdamages at any
joinde
litigation. time time r of all members , including: between
, the Class antitrust laws
i.e., artificially Class
reduced
.
and
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
without sacrificingwithout procedural fairness. claims and issues achieve substantial economies oftime, effort, and expense adjudications ofthe questionsoflaw and fact theClass.Aclass commonto action burdens onthe courts and theparties, and wouldcreate a riskof inconsistent or The prosecution of separate actions by members individual of the adjudicatio 2014 the action of separate actions impractical. is Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page14of35 - 12 60. 61. - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) franchises for their baseball services, §§1 of 15U.S.C. inviolation declaratory relief appropriate with respect theClassas to a whole. on grounds generally applicable totheClass, thereby making final or injunctive (g D (f which controls (d) whether Defendants to,nocollectivenot limited bargaining for leaguers. minor does, whether exemption (c) whether services a §1and/or of is violation 15U.S.C. 2 leagueminor baseball players from negotiating orcontrac (b)
) efendants’ antitrust violations ) Whether Defendants have as a whether theminorleaguers were damaged inthe form oflower compensation whether Defendants ofthe socalled imposition “reserve clause” n ofthiscontroversy be representative class action A class actionsuperior is toother available methods for thefair and efficient The interest ofmembers of the , and wouldassure uniformity ofdecision as toperson ”
the applies to thereserve clause applied against league minor players and i
t and depr nearly hundred year old, should beshould overturned based onchanged circumstances, including, but
esses conspired to The Class cause joinder of all members of theClass
minor leaguers’minor pay colluded, conspired, agreed and/or ; and
would be unobjectionable. The amounts at stake for 11
has a high degree ofcohesion andprosecution of require leaguers all minor tosign thesame UPC,
Class so called court
in individually controlling the prosecution ;
in violation ofthein violation antitrust laws
in adjudicating these common - created antitrust ting withother teams for their Class
s similarly situated,
would imposeheavy acted or r
, which prevents and is impracticable.
2; varying “ baseball efused toact
would
by ,
;
if it
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
revenue isexpectedtoreach dolla $9billion During the2013season, fans over 74million paidattend to MLB games. District. 22. Defendants transact District andare this businessin subject personal to this in jurisdiction 4(a) and 16of theClayton Act, 15U.S.C. U.S.C. and reasonable att § located through Defendants’ employed by and any difficulty inthe management ofaction this as a class action. players and wouldnotbring an action individual outoffear of resources ofthe Defendants’ cartel. members would lack theresources tovigorously litigate against theample and powerful practical members Class toprosecute to their claim members,Class while theaggregate, substantial in are 2014 9b 2012), 8
See See
Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page15of35 26, to obtain injunctive relief26, toobtain injunctive and torecover damages, including treble damages, costsofsuit - by - 12 63. 62. 65. 64. MauryBrown, - - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) 2014&Itemid=42&option=com_content&view=article http://www.bizofbaseball.com/?catid=30:mlb §§ B. A. I.
1, 2. This Court 1, 2.ThisCourt Venue isproper Venue Plaintiffs bring action this pursuant Section 16of to theClayton Act, 15U.S.C. Federal Jurisdiction In 2012,revenue for MLB and thirty its teams surpassed Annual $7.5billion. MLB is MLB of Business The MLB Revenues $7.5B for 2012, Could Approach $9B by 2014 by $9B Approach Could 2012, for $7.5B Revenues MLB known toDefendants orneys’ fees, premised onDefendants’ of violation theSherman Act, 15
big bu
has subject matter jurisdiction I
V. V own siness
.
in this District in this
rec JURISDICTION . Its games are broadcast Also FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
ords.
. The members Class , many ofthe members Class are current league minor §§
- 12 rs in2014. news&id=5769:mlb
15, 26,and 28U.S.C.
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. pursuant 28U.S.C. to . s
individually.
AND
not large enough individually tomake it 8
over these claims pursuant Sections to VENUE
are readily identifiable, and can be throughout the UnitedStates - revenues
retaliation. The members of the
As individuals
§§
§ - , Biz of Baseball (D ofBaseball Biz , 75b
1331 and 1337(a). 1391 and 15U.S.C. - for
There wouldnotbe - 2012 , theclass - could Class ec. 10, 10, ec. - approach
.
§ are
- LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
of movement t promulgate and imposeoppressive rules leaguers’ onminor entry theindustry into MLB and teams minorleaguers its have exploited by, among other things, continuing to major leaguers. high number ofminorleaguers intheir farm systems, hoping Defendants collectively employ around leaguers 6,000 minor total.The Defendants employ this that perform at league the minor levels ofbaseball. It i overlittle 40major leaguers. few mo leaguers onan “active roster” and a few additional players reserved onthe“40 atstadiums the game’s highest level. develop players. MLB te receive higher compensation. clau the minorleaguers players, MLB Yet MLB and teams its notexist. would and Franchises its pay players most in revenue, as they com value of thethirty Franchises 2014 billion/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2013/03/27/baseball 9
MikeOzanian, Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page16of35 - 12 se which restricts competition 66. 69. 68. 67. 71. 70. - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) .
II.
re players are inevitably onthemajor league each disabledso list, Franchise employs a
Baseball Team Valuations 2013: Yankees on Top at $2.3 Billion $2.3 at Top on Yankees 2013: Valuations Team Baseball o other teams, Franchise values for the thirty MLB teams have grown as well. But each Franchise simultaneously stockpiles around leaguers 150to250minor Since the1920s,all MLB teams have used an “farm extensive system” to Minor Leaguers’ Uniform, Contracts Adhesive The baseball players employed by theDefendants The MLB teams acquire leaguers minor inone oftwo ways: through an amateur M
inor leagu
–
depressed compensation through theuse offorced and thereserve UPCs prise thechief product offered by MLB baseball and teams. its Without
ams employ a number small ofmajor leaguers that perform MLB in ers haveauniontocounteract nounion.Without MLB’s power,
and oncontracts, salaries, and
is estimated
by preventing leaguers minor from fairly negotiating to MLB
at $744 million each.at $744million Rules allowRules Franchises toonly maintain25major 13
- team s estimated that,at any given time, the - valuations compensation some will 9
account for muchof - 2013 , Forbes (Mar. 27, 2013), 2013), 27, (Mar. Forbes , -
yankees eventually develop into .
- - T ontop man” roster. A he average , restriction - at
- this risethis 2 - 3 -
–
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
12 signedthrough smallquite the receive draft signing bonuses, usually $2500. around Only college. forego the very amateurs, top however, signinglarge receive majority bonuses. The ofamateurs 11 10 exception of a few players who are 23). Once selected by a previous season, teams select amateur players over the course offorty rounds. the draft inorder tosign withanMLB team. requires allamateur players from theUnited States, Canada, and Puerto Rico toparticipate in on theamounts Franchise league contracts be to filed withandapproved by Mr.Selig le scouting director tocall theCommissioner’s office prior toexceeding therecommended slot bonuses for each high level pick. Toenforce themechanism, Mr.Selig required a Franchise’s development and impl for draftees inthelate 1990s.Acting capacity inhis as chief labor agent, n those players limited Commissioner seeking toenter MLB’s developmental system only to now the 4draft. Rule By forcing amateur players toparticipate inthe draft, MLB and its In 1965, draft or through free agency. 2014 14 by the Commissioner(requiringapproval have effect). to thefor contract 13 egotiating withasingle team. Thus,signing bonuses declined.
Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page17of35 vel. requirement This of approval an is outgrowth ofMLB’s rules, which require all minor MLC Art. II § 2. MLC§ Art. II teams MLB offer signinglarge thebonuses most to amateur talented players as an MLR4. MLR4(a). See - 12 72. 76. 75. 74. 73. - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) (requiring all MLR3(e)
Commissioner FordCommissioner Frick oversaw the development andimplementation of what is
The amateur draft, known as MLB’s Rule 4draft, Players selected intheRule 4draft are between theages of18and 22(with the MLB’s current 4draft, Rule as developed and enforced by theCommissioner, A Upon information and belief, Bud Selig sought further to curb signing bonuses
new, stricter system wasin2012.The current instituted system places limits ementation of an informal “slotting” system recommended with signing
s can spend onsigning bonuses. contracts to be approved by the Commissioner); approved be to contracts MLRAttachment ¶ XXVI UPC 3,
14 14
Beginni ng withthe worst MLB team from the
. Franchise, a player cannot bargain 13
11 10
occurs ofeach inJune year.
incentiveto 12
he directed the
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
16 15 when signing amateurskilled players and, even as free agents, agent can acquisitions occur. Since they were notselected inthedraft, they are viewed as less whoRico were notdrafted 4draft. inthe Rule bonuses for Latino players. Instituted in2012,Mr.Selig’s plan allows each Franchise a certain spend amountto onsigning development ofbonus leaguers.minor investigated practices. the exploitative for participating inbribes and ki young amateur players. Some ofthe Franchises’ scouts have been reprimanded inrecent years similarly equivalent ofan eighth grade education. Befor somost sixteen, players through free agency. MLB rules allow player. with any other Franchise, as MLB’s rules grant the drafting Franchise exclusiverights the to 2014 18 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2009 17
Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page18of35 See See MLR4(e). MLR4(i). See - 12 81. 80. 79. 78. 77. - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) L. Ortiz, Jorge MLR3(a). 15
of conditions necessary f To preserve morale among League Minor players and toproduce thesimilarity
- educated “buscones”
amateur players. MLR 3(b)(2) states:
Defendants require all teams use thesame to uniform player Teams alsosign additional players from theUnited States tothe slottingSimilar system, Mr.Selig also personally oversaw the LatinoMost leaguers minor come from poor families and have only the In thedraft, addition to teams acquire previously amateur Latin American
Latinos are either orseventeen sixteen when signing withaFranchise. Exploitation, steroids hitting home in in home hitting steroids Exploitation,
pools forpools Latino players inan effort tocurtail Latino signing bonuses.
— ckback schemes withthebuscones, and theFBI has even or keen competition, allcontracts…shall be inthe form usually former players who maintaintraining facilities for 17
These Latino signees comprise over forty percent of 15 - 03
18
e signing, many are only represented by the Franchises tosign theplayers as early as age - 26
MLB rules placewhen on such limits free have nobargaining power. - Republic Dominican dominican
- republic - , USA Today (Mar. 26, 2009), 2009), 26, (Mar. USA , Today cover_N.htm , Canada, and Puerto
contract (“UPC”)
.
16
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
23 22 21 20 19 For the next leaguerminor selected intheamateur draft can only sign withthe MLB team that drafted him. seven be subject thedisciplineof to theCommissioner.” team agreement at any for time a may assign theminorleaguer’s rights any to other team, andthe MLB team may terminate the for seven championship seasons (about seven years). with the contracting orentering Club theservice ofany Major or League Minor Club.” because a “player’s refusal sign to a formal contract disqualify shall theplayer from playing Commissioner. the Commissioner…for approval.” 2014 26 25 24
Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page19of35 MLR MLR9; Attachment ¶ XVIII. UPC 3, MLRAttachment MLR¶3(b)(2); VI.A. UPC 3, MLR3(d). MLR3(b)(3). MLR3(b)(3); MLR14. M MLRMLRAttachment 18; ¶ XVI. UPC 3, - 12 LR18. 85. 84. 83. 82. - — 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) - year term requires even of outside MLB, and even of outside theUnited States. Major or a League Minor anda Club player who ha Attachment League 3.AllMinor Uniform Player Contracts between either a of the League Minor Uniform Player Contract appended that is tothese as Rules established from LeagueMinor Uniform Player Contract amount be shall theminimum League playing seasons….The salary minimum ineach season covered by a contract a with Major or League Minor be shall Club for a term ofseven Minor
seven years, the MLB team controlsleaguer’s theminor rights. By theexpiration
see also also see The But leaguer the minor cannot leave voluntarily toplay for another baseball grantsThus, theUPC theMLB t Moreover, contracts “[a]ll be shall induplicate,” befiled and with “[a]ll…must 20
A minorleaguer cannot wo UPC MLR 3(b)(4) (saying MLRthatplayer3(b)(4) a cannot playuntil is signed). theUPC
time to time by totime time theMajor League Clubs…. restricts the Commissioner’s approval. lmost anylmost reason.
a player intheleagues minor ofa single organization. A 19
No contract can vary any term the approval without ofthe
16 23 rk for an MLB team signing without theUPC
eam therights exclusive theminorleaguer to 25
Retirement from ba 22
During period, thattime theMLB team 26
s not previouslys not signed a 24
A player doing so“shall seball during the
21
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
mut salse b” MLB. by” established amount first all that requires 3(c) MLR guidelines. these from little very salary league minor issue competitive marke paying by leaguers minor exploited have Defendants industry, the enter to desire strong leaguer’s minor young wages. league minor over monopoly depressing Defendants’ illegally and artificially from Defendants league players at all leaguersminor at when alltimes using MLR PDCs. 56(g) states: Development Contracts (“PDC”), and the teams are affiliates ofthe MLB Franchises. sign agreements owners with of league minor teams. These agreements are knownas Player eight league minor teams. leagueminor teams atallthelevels oftheminorleagues, having withmost either seven or Franchises tomaintain acertain number of league minor teams. Currently, all MLB teams have the player has aged. of the contract, much ofthe value of theminorleaguer as a young prospect hasexpired because 2014 ofplaying regardless the terms level per ofthe [UPC].” 28 27
Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page20of35 As the 2013 Miami AsLeague MarlinsMinor the 2013 states,“allPlayer Guide first MLR56(g). - 12 90. 89. 88. 87. 86. 91. - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) League Minor the to provided has it Club. that players the and Club League Major r Leagueshall Minor Club LeagueThe Major Club. the to onlyreserved and Club LeagueMajor the to exclusivelycontract under be shall provided so playersThe
espect, be bound by, abide by and not interfere with all contracts between the between contracts all with interfere not and by abide by, bound be espect,
ic mnr eges o o bln t a no, ohn hs rvne the prevented has nothing union, a to belong not do leaguers minor Since minor the of salaries the pay to Franchise MLB the requires MLB Moreover, MLB rules make clear that MLB and its Often the MLB Franchises donot Since thesigning ofa 1962Player Development MLB Plan, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that believe and informed are Plaintiffs t.
times andtimes allows theMLB Franchise the ability tocontrol assignments. hm erse cmesto, eo wa te wud eev i a in receive would they what below compensation, depressed them
“ guidelines
h etya it te ihs lvl o bsbl, n gvn the given and baseball, of levels highest the into entryway the
28
t s urnl blee ta al first all that believed currently is It ”
for players signed to an initial UPC, and teams deviate teams and UPC, initial an to signed players for 17
operate the league minor butinstead stadium Franchises remain theemployers of Defendants, through Defendants, - year players receive $1,100 per month per yearplayers $1,100 receive
- year minor minor year - er io leaguers minor year requires MLB
the Commissioner the leaguers earn “the earn leaguers eas of Because
27
,
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
which season, championship the during paid be to only are salaries onthe 15thdayinstallments and lastday ofthe month.” F the season, championship salary figure has been established and sentyou, to there be will NO negotiations.” Minor Marlins Miami 2013 “T states, the Guide PlayerLeague As them. accept must salary leaguers MLB’s minor follow the simply and Franchises guidelines, the that believed is It negotiations. salary league unilaterally set the salary and the minorleaguer mustagree toit. may Franchise the terms, salary on agree not do leaguer minor and Franchise the if that states addendum an in out set be salarieswill that states UPC the leaguer,as salary minor byallow negotiationthe to purports Class f month currently MLB that leagues, minor the across Defendants the by paid salaries the on based believe, and leaguers)minor occur when MLB quarterly its hosts owner meeti d that employed by theDefendants earn must $1,100 per month. 2014 31 30 29
Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page21of35 MLRAttachment ¶ VII.B. UPC 3, MLRAttachment U 3, MLRAttachment ¶ VII.A. UPC 3, - 12 92. 96. 95. 94. 93. 97. - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) - susos eadn mnr ege aais ad te wrig odtos concerning conditions working other (and salaries league minor regarding iscussions AA; and
or Rookie and Short and Rookie or imposes Salaries beyond the first yearveryFranchises.firstbeyond areacrossallItbelieved Salariessimilar the is MLB also centrally controls when and how minor leaguers are paid. During the During paid. are leaguers minor how and when controls centrally also MLB UPC the then, truth, In Selig, Mr. by enforced and MLB, by required UPC the year, first the Beyond informe are Plaintiffs the available, publicly not are guidelines salary While h UC eurd y L, n efre b M. ei, ute sae that states further Selig, Mr. by enforced and MLB, by required UPC The $2,150 for Class
the following salaries, paid onlyfollowingsalaries,paid the du PC ¶ VII.A.PC
to the UPC and subject to negotiation. to subject and UPC the to - acie ms py io laur “n w () semi (2) two “in leaguers minor pay must ranchises Season A; Season
his salary structure will be strictly adhered to; therefore, once a once therefore, to; adhered strictly be will structure salary his - AAA.
— $1,250 per m per $1,250 and Mr. Selig as enforcer as Selig Mr. and 18
ring the championship season: championship ringthe onth for Class for onth 31
30 29 ngs thatallDefendants attend.
But the same UPC provision UPC same the But —
lasts about five months out months five about lasts - does not allow for minor minor for allow not does A ; $1,50 0 per month for month per 0
$1,100 per - monthly
d
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
season….”). ofClub’s championship playing with end season…[and] the termination ofClub’s championship playing 32 Again, MLB’s UPC Franchise are also selected toparticipate inaninstructional April, May, and ofJune. most A Short and Rookie the when June, of end the paychecks until earn not will players these paid. be to salaries require not does again UPC MLB’s tr spring “extended in site training spring Franchise’s the at remain instead they spring; of end the at team league minor du ofMarch,month lastslonger. sometimes butit month, one around lasts usually season training spring The paycheck. a earning without work leaguers minor so season, championship the outside falls training spring since participate calendar the year.” throughout force full in continue Contract Player Uniform League Minor this “Player that states season.” playing championship actual the during calendarayear serviceson salaryregardlessfactthat basis, the of payments areto bemade only month duringthe onlycompensated being Despite less. or $3,000 year.earn Some year. the of 2014 35 34 33
Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page22of35 MLRAttachment (“Obligation make to ¶ VII.B. such UPC payments 3, Playershall to with start the beginning MLRAttachment ¶ VII.B. UPC 3, See MLRAttachment ¶ VI.B. UPC 3, leagues begin. Thus, many minor leaguers are not paid for work performed during March during performed work for paid not are leaguers minor many Thus, begin. leagues - 100. 12 99. 98. - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) MLRAttachment (saying the ¶“Club’s to VI.B. UPC applies that 3, the UPC training season”).
hminhp esn MBs P “ob UPC MLB’s season, championship
in spring training. spring in
32
At theend of thechampionship season, around 30 30 Around T Plaintiffs believe that most minor leaguers earn less than $7,500 per calendar per $7,500 than less earn leaguers minor most that believe Plaintiffs e eedns apiain f h UC rqie te io laur to leaguer minor the requires UPC, the of application Defendants’ he
therefore understands and agrees that Player’s duties and obligations under obligations and duties Player’s that agrees and understands therefore — as approved and enforced by Mr.Selig
– aining.” Since they are not participating in a championship season, championship a in participating not are they Since aining.” 50 minor leaguers per MLB Franchise do not earn a roster spot on a on spot roster a earn not do FranchiseMLB per leaguers minor 50 34
Again, the UPC does not allow for salaries during this period this during salaries for allow not does UPC the Again, 19
ligates
33
Consistent with that obligation, the UPC UPC the obligation, that with Consistent 35 io leaguers minor
Upon information and belief, manyof belief, and information Upon
league tofurther hone their skills. — requires leaguers minor to – 45 minor leaguers45 minor per MLB
o efr professional perform to approximatelyfive
ig the ring - Season
- , LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
41 40 39 38 37 36 Tools under the judicially created from exemption the antitrust laws u wages during training this period because thechampionship isoutside it season. workouts and players punish for not performing off training issuing by work off winter the during conditioning “Club may imposea reasonable fine uponPlayer….” andtimes places asmay Club determine.” condition andweight during theoff success ofthe throughout the calendar year usually lastaround one leaguers receive nopaychecks during theinstruc perform work pay this without sincethechampionship isoutside it season, sothe minor 2014 44 43 42
Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page23of35 See See MLRAttachment ¶ VI.D. UPC 3, MLRAttachment ¶ VI.D. UPC 3, MLRAtta MLRAttachment ¶ XII. UPC 3, MLRAttachment ¶ VII.B. UPC 3, Flood Toolson Club ofBaltimore Baseball Fed. - 103. 101. 12 102. - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) MLRAttachment ¶ VII.B. UPC 3, on
v.
,
43 v. Kuhn chment¶ VI.D. UPC 3,
and NewYankees York
, 407 U.S. 258 U.S. 407 , Club.” The Defendants T MLB’s also UPC requires leaguers minor tomaintain“first Flood e eedns hrfr rqie lyr t prom xesv tann and training extensive perform to players require therefore Defendants he III 38 . 44
Consequently, a “Club may require Player tomaintain Player’s playing
month.
trilogy
packets to all the players. Many, and perhaps all, Franchises monitor monitor Franchises all, perhaps and Many, players. the all to packets Th
(1972) , Inc. , 37
e AntitrustBaseball” Exemption of the“Business for
v.
because theplayer’s “physical important isto…the condition of Supreme Courtcases Nat'lClubs LeagueBall ofProf'l Base seek toavoidtheir“reserve clause” , 346 U.S. 356 U.S. 346 ,
- - season and toreport for practice and condition atsuch esn I i blee ta al rnhss iet h winter the direct Franchises all that believed is It season. 39
20
If the player fails tomeet these requireme (1953).
tional league.
- season workouts. 40
. That judicially created 36 , 259 U.S. 200 U.S. 259 , nder the
The instructional l and UPC M Federal Baseball inor leaguers receive no - class” conditioning
(1922). antitrust violations antitrust violations exemption exemption 41
eagues
nts, the , 42
has
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
threatened resulting loss from the unlawf league players the shortend of thebat. thefinanciallyantitrust laws tostop superior Defendants from continuing togive the minor bargaining, and nofree agency, are at acompetitive disadvantage and need theprotection of restraints oncompetition. games. D monopoly intheof provision professional baseball games and theplayers that produce those who, ina competitive market, wouldoffer them more for their services. The Defendants have a receive, ofviolation price fixing players from shopping their services tocompeting teams. It results intheper se antitrust through the“reserve clause” and uniform player contrac competition. There need isno for Congressional legislation, already it exists. Sherman Act outlaw restraints to ontr exemption stare decisis rationale and been rejected by theSupreme decision in Court,inits in interstate commerce has a bargaining, profe everit had, any current economic basisin reality, especially for themarket league minor in long since been criticized 2014 Club 45 leagueminor men's professional baseball cont
Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page24of35 Justice DouglasJustice in - 105. 104. 106. 12 …is a derelict in the stream derelict …isa ofthe law that we,should remove. its creator, - ny underpinning. The rationale, initial that professional baseball’s cartel was not ssional baseball players’ compensation where leaguers minor have nounion, 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB)
by preventing l minor efendants reap huge financial rewards as a result oftheir monopoly powe
also have nobasis. Congress address did the issue in1890,when enacted it the no The “baseball allows theDefendants exemption” conspire to and collude, The judicially created “baseball exemption” free agency Plaintiffs seek relief under Flood , supra 407 U.S. at 286, summed 286, at U.S. “This Court’sit up. 407 in supra decision ,
and ,
at artificially low , even
The league minor players the rationale
or other means offairly negotiating for their services. was
eague players from offering their services tocompeting teams
by theSuprem therefore notsubject federal to regulation, antitrust hassince ade and theexercise of monopoly power that harm
that ul exercise of market power by MLB inthe market for the
levels, the 21 Congress, thecourts not should federal laws antitrust inconnection witha racts
e itself Court
in the United States, Mexico, Canadain the UnitedStates, Mexico, and who
compensation Flood ts, to preventts, to league minor baseball have nounion,collective
from .
45 v.
The Kuhn
the antitrust laws nolonger ”
exemption
minor leagueminor players can , 407U.S.258(1972).
Federal Baseball Baseball Federal redress the baseball
no longer
no r and
col engaged has, if lective
The the LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
and UPC as a means to stifle competition and suppress the compensation that minor leaguers minor that compensation the suppress and competition stifle to means a as UPC and federal baseball contests consumer to m provide to necessary reasonably cooperation any beyond far off prevent and restrict, eliminate, that self economic own their in act owners off and thei structured Un the in clubs baseball receive.should league players minor such preventing by players baseball professional league minor for market the within Act Sherman the of 2 Section of violation in power monopoly maintained and acquired Constitution, restraints under Section 1of theSherman Act. hi power veto by Use of provision Defendants application of unr the Caribbean. MLB isexcluding competition andrestraining trade inthat market through the 2014 t in competition eliminate receive Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page25of35 hr opnain ih te teams, other with compensation gher - 109. 108. 107. 110. 12 - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB)
, -
antitrust
Defendants from freely negotiating freely from field business competition to be made by the club owners themselves. In so doing, the doing, so In themselves. owners club the by made be to competition business field wh
from c wud e infcnl hge asn Dfnat attut iltos which violations, antitrust Defendants absent higher significantly be would ich n cnrl vr hi mnr egepaes blt o eoit n otat for contract and negotiate to ability players’ league minor their over control and minor Defendants r governance to permit major decisions regarding on regarding decisions major permit to governance r MLB is comprised of thirty separately owned and operated major league men's league major operated and owned separately thirty of comprised is MLB MLB the in provisions anticompetitive and exclusionary the and MLB Through the in power market has and teams member competitive of up made is MLB This action challenges action This
laws and the use of the illegal cartelillegal the of use the and laws negotiating, contracting, easonable restrictions league onminor pla
of leag the reserve clause, the UPC, and draft, and UPC, the clause, reserve the
ue professional baseball games in North America North in games baseball professional ue
td tts n Cnd. h MLB, The Canada. and States ited ae osie t violate to conspired have e amn o mnr leaguers. minor of payment he s.
wit h other teams for their services and the compensation they compensation the and services their for teams other h — - - field competition. These anticompetitive agreements go agreements anticompetitive These competition. field interest, including entering into a series of series a into entering including interest,
and seeks to remedy to seeks and paying and competing for league minor players.
22 r uraoal, nafl ad anticompetitive and unlawful, unreasonable, are
to institute and maintain the reservethe clausemaintain and institute to
h antitrust the
yer compensation by preventing o ol ae uh gemns not agreements such are only Not
which grants each Club absolute Club each grants which ie te sot laus have leagues, sports other like — inor
Defendants' violation of violation Defendants'
-
field sporting competition sporting field league men's professional men's league as ad ae willfully have and laws,
and Latin America Latin and
agreements
the .
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
opttv blne ihn h lau ta fn pee, r o anan h vaiiy of viability the maintain to or prefer, fans Defendants that league the within balance competitive m theycontests, necessarybaseballreducingproducingaredirected at to 2014 Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page26of35 inor league - 111. 12 - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB)
.
rs by eliminating competition for their services. These violations of laws and restraints are not necessary to maintain a level of level a maintain to necessary not are restraints and laws of violations These
23
the
compe nsati on paid to paid on
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
movement, andpayment ofleague minor players, all ofwhich directly and indirectly affect affil market for professional league minor baseball players. Sherman Act. There has been injury inthe relevant tocompetition product market, which isthe on compensation and player movement be should unlawful purposes. teams compete thatwill for their services and pay themhigher compensation. restrictions on competitive leagueminor players would benefit league the minor players by providing thembetter lessened therelevant competition in markets leagueto minor players toa restraints, other. In particular, inthe absence ofthe reserve clause restrictions and other competitive compensation league to,minor players where could theClubs andwould compete with each and among the 2014 select group andlimited created, intended and maintained by Defendants for thepurpose ofpermitting an intentionally interstate Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page27of35 - 117. 116. 115. 114. 113. 112. 118. 12 iate teams,donot but should, - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) VII IV
commerce. Major League Baseball isanunreasonable and unlawful monopoly . Defendants .
compensation Defendants’ Plaintiffs
compensation and Anticompetitive Consumer To Led And Effects Harm AgreementsThe Have Rest Plaintiffs Have Suffered Antitrust Injury Have Suffered Plaintiffs Defendants have the misused UPC There are nolegitimate, pro byCompetition individual The above The above Defendants
T he adverse effects ofsuchare misuse continuing, and restrictions theUPC
would compete witheach other in and theClass , theDefendants,
- - actions have placed direct andindirect restraints onthe acquisition, described agreements have adversely affected and substantially described agreements have restrained competition between horizontal .
and theMLB, including inthe procurement
much greater
the compete for league minor players. have suffered cognizable antitrust injury under the
inability ofminorleague players tooffer their services to
to reap enormous profits. MLB has achieved thes Defendants extent thantheyextent donow. - competitive justifications fo 24 rained Competition HaveHad And
for league minor baseball players
enjoined and and reserve clause
independently acting toacquire and retain Defendants
the acquisition of, and compensation
declared unenforceable. , through theirleague minor
for of, and payment of r these
anticompe
. anti competitive
titive andtitive and
e LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
market. Class conspiracy alleged herein hasin calculated after discovery and by increased player purchasing power. better baseball product, andthe economy losesincreased revenue, tax and jobs, busin league teams theability lose tofield more competitive teams, thefans lose outonviewing a players compensation for their baseball services and are denied the freedom ofmovement available to injured because league minor players are prevented from obtaining fair competitive leagueminor (and major league) professional baseball market. competition through theexercise of MLB’s players leagueminor players the compensation league paid minor to pl league players and tounreasonably restrain trade by conspiring tofix compensation for their services, monopoly toestablish control ofthe relevant market for minor market for league minor players, and toexclude prevent them from obt conspiracy, thesubstantialterms ofwhich have been toeliminatetherelevant all competition in restraints ontrade and monopoly its statusby engaging inanunlawful combinationand 2014 Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page28of35 - 122. 121. 120. 119. 12 - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) with loss or with loss ’
in virtually every other professional theUnited sport in States.
services by fixingthecompensation league minor players receive While thefull amount ofPlaintiffs'While damages are notpresently known,they be will Plaint As a result ofDefendants' anticompetitive agreements, Plaintiffs Defendant's unlawful activitieshave resulted in(a) an unlawful restraint oftrade in damage inlower compensation tha iffs' injuries are also tothepublic injuries and The tocompetition. major ’ compensation
will bewill jured Plaintiffs ; (b) theelimination of competition for league minor awarded based onproof at trial. The combination and
ayers. 25 exclusive,
and theClass n they wouldreceive in a competitive
dominant andmonopoly inthe position and continues tothreaten
,
at belowmarket value aining fair and by eliminating and theClass ,
competitive ess growth the
are ,
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
services tootherleague minor teams, thereby restricting trade and commerce, limiting leagueminor players by refusing toallowthemnegotiate use ofthemonopolistic UPC league men's professional baseball players leagueminor play by blocking themovement through players are required tosign compensation league paid minor to players. or concerted action between and among Defendants andtheir co the compensation league paid minor to players. or concerted action between and among Defendants andtheir co professional baseball players. Defendants commerce withthe purpose, intent, andeffect ofrestraining competition among horizontal the combine, ormonopoly for thepurpose ofcreating and carrying outrestrictions o through 122 2014 compensation league paid minor to players. competition with Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page29of35 - 128. 127. 126. 125. 124. 123. 129. 12 - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB)
MLB (Damages for
and theMLB for theacquisition of and compensation league paid minor to
Through theanticompetitive conduct described herein, Defendants andtheir co The By virtue ofthe exclusionary and anticompetitive The trust,combination The trust,combination Defendants andtheir co above. Plaintiffs ,
h ave in the market area, and controlling Defendants ers, thereby preventing therelevant competition in market
willfully acquired and maintained monopoly power inthe relevant market incorporate and reallege, a
Violation of theSherman of Violation Act ) of
and t ,
and “reserve clause” tomaintain amonopoly power over these which and ability tonegotiate and receive competitive compensation he reserve clause ofthe MLB Constitution, , ormonopoly , ormonopoly has resulted inanagreement, underst - should be should conspirators created, operated, aided, or abetted a trust, VI . , COUNT ONE
have conspired withandthrough MLB, through the
26
actual competitors inthemarket for minor
s though fully set forth herein has resulted inanagreement, understanding, at depressed below competitive ,
–
Monopoly, 15 U.S.C. §2) 15U.S.C. Monopoly, with UPC ( UPC - - conspirators thatsuppresses conspirators tosuppress the or move to which league all minor .
or
Defendants, , Paragraphs 1 offer their n trade or
anding,
- for
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
expenses for which they seek recovery according toproof. Plaintiffs were forced action, tofile this resulting inongoing attorneys' fees, costs,and other sustained plusinterest. Clayton Act, Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief pursuant §§1,2, 15U.S.C. to thepurposetrust with oflessening thebus competition in Defendants andtheir co Plaintiffs' The was loss. loss a direct result andproximate ofthe absent Defendants’ anticompetitive actions. of loss the result ofthe actions of Defendants andtheir co them todoso,i maintain thatmonopoly power inthe relevant market, andtheir illegal conduct hasenabled Defendantsposition. andtheir co those which could beconsidered as "legitimat by anticompetitive and unreasonably exclusionary conduct. These activities have gone beyond continue towillfully maintain,thatmonopoly power over the market for league minor players conspirators have willfully acquired and maintained, and unlessrest 2014 through 133 Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page30of35 - 133. 132. 131. 130. 135. 134. 12 - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) competitive, hig
Defendants possess above Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege, as though fully set forth herein, As a di Because The conduct ofDefendants andtheir co Plaintiffs and theClass have suffered an ascertainable ofmoney loss orproperty as 15 U.S.C. § 15 U.S.C. (Injunct n violation ofn violation theSherman Act, §1. 15U.S.C. .
rect andlegal result ofthe acts ofDefendants andtheir co
Defendants andtheir co
ive Relief her -
conspirators to
15, compensation they wouldhave received ina competitive market Plaintiffs are authorized torecover three the times damages they
monopoly power inthe market for league minor men's - conspirators have acted with an illegally intent to acquire and -
Violation of Section 2 of The Sherman The Section 2of of ActViolation VII. COUNT TWO
monopolize,
27 - e business activities," and are an abuse ofmarket conspirators created, operated, aided, or abetted a
- conspirators, tothe including limited but not -
restrain trade and lessen competition. conspirators a is substantial factor in iness ofleague minor baseball
willful conspiracywillful of rained by theCourt,will
15 - . Pursuantthe to conspirators, Paragraphs 1 )
.
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
continuing toengage inthe suffer antitrust injury and threatened ordamage loss unlessDefendants are enjoined from injury toPlaintiff conduct hasenabled of violation themSection doso,in 2of to theSherman Act, §2. 15U.S.C. acquire and maintainthatmonopoly power inthe relevant market, andtheir illegal market Defendants position. andtheir co beyond those which could beconsidered as "legitimate businessactivities," and are an abuse of players by anticompetiti continue towillfully maintain,thatmonopoly power over the market for league minor baseball conspirators have willfully acquired and maintained, and unlessrestrained by theCourt,will to move from the clubs thatdrafted themor tonegotiate for compensation. monopoly power inthe market for league minor players by men's professional baseball playe preventing thatmarket. competition in their ability tonegotiate and receive competitive compensation for their services, thereby monopoly power inthe relevant including the“reserveConstitution, clause”, Defendants have willfully acquired and maintained professional baseball play 2014 through 1 Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page31of35 - 136. 139. 138. 137. 141. 140. 12 - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB)
39
above. Defendants' anticompetitive conduct hasdirectly and proximately caused ant Through theanticompetitive conduc Defendants By virtue ofexclusionary and anticompetitiveand theUPC provisions in MLB Beginning at atime presently unknown toPlaintiffs,and continui Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege, as
and theClass
(Damages ve and unreasonably exclusionary conduct. These activities have gone
( which ers above described .
, as setforth above. Plaintiffs should be should market rs - Violation of Section 1 of The Sherman The Section 1of of ActViolation )
have conspired withandthrough MLB tomaintain a
VIII. COUNT THREE by blocking themovement ofleague minor - conspirators have acted with an illegall intent to
actual competitors inthemarket for league minor 28 violations of violations
t described herein, Defendants andtheir co though fully set forth herein, Paragraphs 1
the unreasonably
and theClass antitrust
law refusing toallowthem s
. will continuewill to
) ng through the
players and itrust itrust y
-
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
above. players t antitrust injury, inthe form oflower compensation (or nocompensation) league tominor alleged herein. acted willingly or,due toco among Defendants andother unnamed co conduct was through mutual understandings, combinations oragreements by, between and with the co and elsewhere. leaguersminor anticompetitive effects therelevant in markets and among Defendants of violation Section 1of in theSherman Act. It hasled to compensation from other minorleague pr leaguethat minor players are restrained and prevented from playing for and negotiating for understanding, orconcerted action between and among Defendants andtheir co professional baseball players, of inviolation Section 1of theSherman Act, §1. 15U.S.C. restraining trade and commerce inthe employment competition among the or conspiracy inrestraint oftrade withthe purpose, intent, andeffect ofrestraining horizontal present, 2014 Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page32of35 - 144. 143. 142. 145. 12 - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB)
han the Defendants andtheir co - conspirators occurred inoraf
, as alleged above and Defendants' anticompetitive conduct hasdirectly and proximately caused Defendants' contract, combination,agreement, understanding orconcerted action The contract, combination,orconspiracy has restrained competition between The contract, combinationorconspi y wouldhave received absent Defendants
ercion, unwillingly infurtherance ofthe unlawful restraint oftrade - conspirators entered a into continuing agreement, combination
and theMLB, w
has
fected interstate commerce. Defendants' unlawful caused injury inthoserelevant tocompetition markets - ofessional baseball teams. conspirators. These other co 29
Defendants’ antitrust violations
resulting
racy has resulted inanagreement, of ith thepurpose,ith intent, andeffect of
and compensation league paid minor to
in belowcompe
- conspirators have either titive compensationtitive ,
as setforth - conspirators
to LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
payment toPlaintiffs; designation of their undersigned counsel ofrecord as Counsel, anda Class reasonable incentive antitrust laws; legal rate from and after the date of service provided by tothe extent ofthisComplaint law; Act, §§15and 26; 15U.S.C. of thisaction, including reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant Sectio to thetimes amount ofdamages sustainedby Plaintiffsas allowed by law, together with the costs of Section 2of theSherman Act, § 15U.S.C. maintain monopoly power inthe relevant product market beadjudged tohave been inviolation have been a of violation Sectio thereof by Defendants andtheir co league players; “ inflicted by any other co co 2014 under the circumstances. reserve clause Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page33of35 nspiracy and thatDefendants, andeach ofthem, are liable for the conduct ofor damage - 12 - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs,and each ofthem, pray as follows: G. F. E. D. C. B. A. I H. .
Defendants andtheir c Plaintiffs be awarded pre judgment and post Judgment be entered for Plaintiffs The actions ofDefendants andtheir co The contract, combinationorconspiracy, and theacts done infurtherance Defendants, andeach ofthem, bepermanently enjoined from enforcing the declareThis Court theconduct ofDefendants, andeach ofthem, a constituted P Designation of thenamed Plaintiffs herein asclas ”
laintiffs have such other, further relief, as this Court may deem just and proper which unlawfully
and
- conspirator;
n 1of theSherman Act, §1; 15U.S.C. - restrict conspirators as alleged be complaint, inthis adjudged to IX
o - . PRAYER FOR RELIEF conspirators be enjoined from further viola s
the movem 30
2;
and theClass - conspirators toillegally acquire and ent by and compensation paid to - judgment interest atthehighest and against Defendants for three s representatives of theClass
ns 4and 16of theClayton
tions ofthetions ,
minor minor
, LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
DATED: December 2014 Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page34of35 - 12 - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB)
5 , 2014
31 By: LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN DAVID LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL KORNHAUSER
those similarly situated Attorney for Plaintiffsand Samuel Kornhauser /s/ Samuel Kornhauser/s/
and
LAW OFFICES SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7
DATED: December 2014 Case3:14-cv-05349-JCS Document1Filed12/05/14Page35of35 - 12 - 05 Complaint05 (Miranda v.OCB) Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury ofall issues sotriable.
5 , 2014
X
.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
32 By: LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN DAVID LA
W OFFICESW OF SAMUEL KORNHAUSER
those similarly situated Attorney for Plaintiffsand Samuel Kornhauser
/s/ Samuel Kornhauser/s/
and