Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
San Jose complaint

San Jose complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 26,634|Likes:
Published by Deadspin
San Jose complaint
San Jose complaint

More info:

Published by: Deadspin on Jun 18, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/05/2013

pdf

text

original

 
5
10
15
2025
.~.
1JOSEPH W
.
COTCHEI1'
(SBN
36324) 
jcotchett@qnnlegalcorn
2PIDLIP
L.
GREGORY (SBN 95217) pgregory(akpmlegal.com
3 
FRANK
C.
DAMRELL,
JR (SBN 37126)
4
ANNE
MAlliE
MURPHY
(SBN
202540) anlurphy@cpmlega1.com 
JiJN
i 8
2013 
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
N~~
~'i~:
J"
r)k;LI
l:.
t
t,;.j
c....:.;.,-~j'~J:l
6
Burlingame" California 94010
~~i'I,...:~~
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
7
Facsimile: (650) 692-36068
RICHARD
DOYLE
(SBN
88625) 
CITY
ATTORNEY 9
NORA
FRIlVfANN (SBN
93249) .
OFFICE
OF THE
CITY
ATfORNEY 
200 East Santa Clara Street. 16
th
Floor 
San
Jose,
California 95113 
11
Telephone:'
(408) 535-1900
rt
Facsimile: (408)
S;~\"'':!J
12
E-Mail
.
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
SanJose;
and
the San
Jose Diridon Development
Authorrty
IN THE
UNITED STAXES DISTRICT
COURT 
FORTHE
NORTHERN
DA1J.JCT
OF
CALIFORNIA
16
, SAN
OSV"IS)~~l-
0 2
7
. .
7
17
L,
cn",
OF
SAN
J'OSE;
CITY
OF
SAN
Case No.
8
H
JOSE
AS
SUCCESSOR AGENCY
TO
18
THE
REDEVELOPMENT AG.ENCY
OF
COMl'LAINT: 
THE,
CIT'!"
OF
SAN
JOSE;
and
THE
SAN
19
1.
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCEAUTHORITY,
JOSE
DmlDON
DEVELOPMENT
'MTH
PROSPECTIVE
Ja::CONOMIC
ADVANTAGE;
Plaintiffs,
2.
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
21
'WITH
CONTRACTUALADVANTAGE;
.
22
3.
CALIFORNIA'S
UNFAIR
OFFICE
OF
THE
COMMISSIONER"
OF
COMPETITION LAW (SECTION
23
17200); 
doing busi:oess as
Major
League
Baseball; BASEBAl,L,
an unincorporated association
4.
VIOLATIONS
OF
CALIFORNIA'S
24
CARTWRIGHT
ACT;
nd
ALLAN
HUBER
"BUD" SELIG,
5.
VIOLATIONS
OFTHE
SHERMAN
Defendants.
ACT,
SECTION
2;
AND
6.
VIOLATIONS
OF THE
SHERMAN
26
AC1" SECTION
1
27
.JURY
TRIAL
DEMANDED
28
UwOfli<:o.
CoTCHlrIT.
COMPLAINT
PI'l;MI:
£13/113
39t1d
1E1£866813t:>
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Law Offices
C
OTCHETT
,
 
P
ITRE
&
 
M
C
C
ARTHY
,
LLP
 
COMPLAINT
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSI.
 
INTRODUCTION
..............................................................................................................1
 
II.
 
PARTIES
............................................................................................................................6
 
A.
 
PLAINTIFFS
......................................................................................................................6
 
B.
 
DEFENDANTS
..................................................................................................................7
 
C.
 
RELEVANT MARKETS
..................................................................................................8
 
III.
 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
........................................................................................9
 
A.
 
FEDERAL JURISDICTION
............................................................................................9
 
B.
 
STATE PENDENT JURISDICTION
..............................................................................9
 
C.
 
VENUE
................................................................................................................................9
 
D.
 
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
...............................................................................10
 
IV.
 
NATURE OF INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE
.......................................10
 
V.
 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
..........................................................................................11
 
A.
 
RELEVANT HISTORY OF THE ATHLETICS
.........................................................11
 
B.
 
RELEVANT HISTORY OF THE CROSS BAY RIVAL – THE GIANTS
...............12
 
C.
 
THE TERRITORIAL DISPUTE BETWEEN THE A’s AND GIANTS
....................13
 
D.
 
MLB’S REFUSAL TO PERMIT RELOCATION OF THE OAKLAND A’S CLUBRESTRAINS COMPETITION AND CREATES ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTSTHAT WILL LEAD TO CONSUMER HARM
...........................................................22
 
E.
 
THE MLB CONSTITUTION
.........................................................................................23
 
F.
 
THE GIANTS BLOCK THE A’S RELOCATION TO SAN JOSÉ
...........................25
 
G.
 
DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT LIMITS COMPETITION IN THE BAY AREABASEBALL MARKET AND PERPETUATES THE GIANTS’ MONOPOLY OVER THE SANTA CLARA MARKET
..................................................................................26
 
H.
 
THE AGREEMENTS HAVE RESTRAINED COMPETITION AND HAVE HADANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTS AND LED TO CONSUMER HARM
..................27
 
I.
 
MLB HAS INTERFERRED WITH PLAINTIFFS’ CONTRACTUALRELATIONSHIP WITH THE ATHLETICS AND ITS FUTURE ECONOMICADVANTAGE
..................................................................................................................28
 
J.
 
PLAINTIFFS HAVE SUFFERED ANTITRUST INJURY
.........................................29
 
1.
 
The tax revenue to be received by the City of San José has been greatlydiminished
...................................................................................................................31
 
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Law Offices
C
OTCHETT
,
 
P
ITRE
&
 
M
C
C
ARTHY
,
LLP
 
COMPLAINT
ii
2.
 
The City of San José has lost millions in new direct spending that would haveaccrued during the construction period and the post-construction period
..........31
 
3.
 
The City of San José’s General Fund has lost millions
..........................................31
 
4.
 
The City of San José’s local agencies, including its school district, have losthundreds of thousands of dollars on an annual basis
.............................................31
 
5.
 
The City of San José has lost millions in new sales tax revenue that would haveaccrued during the construction period and the post-construction period
..........32
 
6.
 
The City of San José has lost hundreds of new jobs and the related revenues thatwould have been generated for the City
..................................................................32
 
7.
 
The City of San José has lost new economic output generated by spending relatedto the ballpark 
............................................................................................................32
 
8.
 
Plaintiffs have been deprived of free and open competition in the relocation of theAthletics
......................................................................................................................33
 
9.
 
Plaintiffs failed to receive the benefits to which they were entitled under theOption Agreement, which benefits they would have received in an competitivemarketplace absent Defendants’ conspiracy
...........................................................33
 
10.
 
Plaintiffs have lost millions of dollars spent on planning for the franchiserelocation
....................................................................................................................33
 
11.
 
Competition in the relocation of major league professional baseball teams hasbeen restrained, suppressed, or eliminated
.............................................................34
 
VI.
 
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
..................................................................................................34
 
COUNT ONE
 
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
.....34
 
COUNT TWO
 
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL ADVANTAGE
..........................35
 
COUNT THREE
 
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
..................................36
 
COUNT FOUR 
 
VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CARTWRIGHT ACT
..............................................38
 
COUNT FIVE
 
VIOLATION OF SECTION 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT
.....................................................40
 
COUNT SIX
 
VIOLATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT
.....................................................41
 
VII.
 
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
..................................................................................................41
 
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
...................................................................................................44
 

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Aung Lwin liked this
Scribd liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->