COMPLAINT PI'l;MI: £13/113 39T1d 1E1£866813T:>
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
.~. 1 JOSEPH W .. COTCHEI1' (SBN 36324) jcotchett@qnnlegalcorn 2 PIDLIP L. GREGORY (SBN 95217) pgregory(akpmlegal.com 3 FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR (SBN 37126) [email protected] 4 ANNE MAlliE MURPHY (SBN 202540) [email protected] JiJN i 8 2013 5 COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP ::;i...h~fc,l vv. VVI",I(I"CI 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Oll,ll"k. U .~;;. Dk,,,,'i.:i·; c(.\u(t 6 N~~ ~'i~: J" r)k;LI il:. t t,;.j c....:.;.,-~j'~J:l Burlingame" California 94010 ~~i'I,...:~~ Telephone: (650) 697-6000 7 Facsimile: (650) 692-3606 8 RICHARD DOYLE (SBN 88625) CITY ATTORNEY 9 NORA FRIlVfANN (SBN 93249) . OFFICE OF THE CITY ATfORNEY 10 200 East Santa Clara Street. 16th Floor San Jose, California 95113 11 Telephone:' (408) 535-1900 rt Facsimile: (408) 998-3131 S;~\"'':!J 12 E-Mail Address:[email protected]«::~~ . 13 Attorneys/or Plaintiffs the City o/San Jose,' the City-o/San Jose, as stlccesso," agency to the Redevelopment Agency o/the City of 14 San Jose; and the San Jose Diridon Development Authorrty 15 IN THE UNITED STAXES DISTRICT COURT 16 FOR THE NORTHERN DA1J.JCT OF CALIFORNIA , SAN JOSV"IS)~~l- 0 2 ~7 . .7 17 cn", OF SAN J'OSE; CITY OF SAN Case No. 8 H L, 18 JOSE AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AG.ENCY OF COMl'LAINT: 19 THE,CIT'!" OF SAN JOSE; and THE SAN JOSE DmlDON DEVELOPMENT 1. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE 20 AUTHORITY, 'MTH PROSPECTIVE Ja::CONOMIC ADVANTAGE; 21 Plaintiffs, 2. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE 'WITH CONTRACTUAL 22 v. ADVANTAGE; 3. CALIFORNIA'S UNFAIR 23 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER"OF COMPETITION LAW (SECTION BASEBAl,L, an unincorporated association 17200); VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA'S 24 doing busi:oess as Major League Baseball; 4. and ALLAN HUBER "BUD" SELIG, CARTWRIGHT ACT; VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN 25 5. Defendants. ACT, SECTION 2; AND 26 6. VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN AC1" SECTION 1 27 .JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 28 UwOfli<:o. CoTCHlrIT. COMPLAINT PI'l;MI: £13/113 39t1d 1E1£866813t:> 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1 3 II. PARTIES ............................................................................................................................6 4 A. PLAINTIFFS ......................................................................................................................6 5 B. DEFENDANTS ..................................................................................................................7 6 C. RELEVANT MARKETS ..................................................................................................8 7 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................9 8 A. FEDERAL JURISDICTION ............................................................................................9 9 B. STATE PENDENT JURISDICTION ..............................................................................9 10 C. VENUE ................................................................................................................................9 11 D. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT ...............................................................................10 12 IV. NATURE OF INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE .......................................10 13 V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................11 14 A. RELEVANT HISTORY OF THE ATHLETICS .........................................................11 15 B. RELEVANT HISTORY OF THE CROSS BAY RIVAL – THE GIANTS ...............12 16 C. THE TERRITORIAL DISPUTE BETWEEN THE A’s AND GIANTS ....................13 17 D. MLB’S REFUSAL TO PERMIT RELOCATION OF THE OAKLAND A’S CLUB RESTRAINS COMPETITION AND CREATES ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTS 18 THAT WILL LEAD TO CONSUMER HARM ...........................................................22 19 E. THE MLB CONSTITUTION .........................................................................................23 20 F. THE GIANTS BLOCK THE A’S RELOCATION TO SAN JOSÉ ...........................25 21 G. DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT LIMITS COMPETITION IN THE BAY AREA BASEBALL MARKET AND PERPETUATES THE GIANTS’ MONOPOLY OVER 22 THE SANTA CLARA MARKET ..................................................................................26 23 H. THE AGREEMENTS HAVE RESTRAINED COMPETITION AND HAVE HAD ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTS AND LED TO CONSUMER HARM ..................27 24 I. MLB HAS INTERFERRED WITH PLAINTIFFS’ CONTRACTUAL 25 RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ATHLETICS AND ITS FUTURE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE ..................................................................................................................28 26 J. PLAINTIFFS HAVE SUFFERED ANTITRUST INJURY .........................................29 27 1. The tax revenue to be received by the City of San José has been greatly 28 diminished ...................................................................................................................31 Law Offices COTCHETT , COMPLAINT i PITRE & MCCARTHY , LLP 2. The City of San José has lost millions in new direct spending that would have 1 accrued during the construction period and the post-construction period ..........31 2 3. The City of San José’s General Fund has lost millions ..........................................31 3 4. The City of San José’s local agencies, including its school district, have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on an annual basis .............................................31 4 5. The City of San José has lost millions in new sales tax revenue that would have 5 accrued during the construction period and the post-construction period ..........32 6 6. The City of San José has lost hundreds of new jobs and the related revenues that would have been generated for the City ..................................................................32 7 7. The City of San José has lost new economic output generated by spending related 8 to the ballpark ............................................................................................................32 9 8. Plaintiffs have been deprived of free and open competition in the relocation of the Athletics ......................................................................................................................33 10 9. Plaintiffs failed to receive the benefits to which they were entitled under the 11 Option Agreement, which benefits they would have received in an competitive marketplace absent Defendants’ conspiracy ...........................................................33 12 10. Plaintiffs have lost millions of dollars spent on planning for the franchise 13 relocation ....................................................................................................................33 14 11. Competition in the relocation of major league professional baseball teams has been restrained, suppressed, or eliminated .............................................................34 15 VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ..................................................................................................34 16 COUNT ONE 17 TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE .....34 18 COUNT TWO TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL ADVANTAGE ..........................35 19 COUNT THREE 20 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW ..................................36 21 COUNT FOUR VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CARTWRIGHT ACT ..............................................38 22 COUNT FIVE 23 VIOLATION OF SECTION 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT .....................................................40 24 COUNT SIX VIOLATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT .....................................................41 25 VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................. 41 26 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ...................................................................................................44 27 28 Law Offices COTCHETT , COMPLAINT ii PITRE & MCCARTHY , LLP 1 Plaintiffs City of San José, City of San José as successor agency to the Redevelopment 2 Agency of the City of San José, and the San José Diridon Development Authority (collectively 3 “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows: 4 I. INTRODUCTION 5 1. This action arises from the Blatant conspiracy By Major League BaseBall (“MLB”) 6 to prevent the Athletics BaseBall CluB from moving to San José. For years, MLB has unlawfully 7 conspired to control the location and relocation of major league men’s professional BaseBall cluBs 8 under the guise of an “antitrust exemption” applied to the Business of BaseBall. 9 2. BaseBall occupies a coveted place in American culture. It is a uniquely American 10 sport, originating Before the American Civil War as a humBle game played on sandlots. In 1871, 11 the first professional BaseBall league was Born. Eventually the teams were divided into two 12 leagues, the National and American – these are the two leagues that persist today. 13 3. Today there are 30 separate Major League BaseBall CluBs in the United States, all 14 of which compete against each other in regularly scheduled games. BaseBall is Big Business in the 15 United States with comBined 2012 annual revenues of $7.5 billion . Whereas BaseBall may have 16 started as a local affair, modern BaseBall is squarely within the realm of interstate commerce. 17 MLB CluBs ply their wares nationwide; games are Broadcast throughout the country on satellite 18 TV and radio, as well as caBle channels; and MLB CluBs have fan Bases that span from coast to 19 coast.