Está en la página 1de 29

Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:913

1 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP


JOHN W. KEKER - # 49092
2 jkeker@keker.com
R. ADAM LAURIDSEN - # 243780
3 alauridsen@keker.com
BENJAMIN D. ROTHSTEIN - # 295720
4 brothstein@keker.com
BAILEY W. HEAPS - # 295870
5 bheaps@keker.com
633 Battery Street
6 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone: 415 391 5400
7 Facsimile: 415 397 7188
8 Attorneys for Defendants
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, an
9 unincorporated association doing business as MAJOR
LEAGUE BASEBALL
10 [See next page for list of represented Defendants]
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13

14 WESTERN DIVISION
15 MATTHEW AJZENMAN; SUSAN Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
TERRY-BAZER; BENNY WONG;
16 ALEX CANELA; JEREMY NOTICE OF MOTION AND
WOOLLEY; AMANDA WOOLLEY; MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS
17 ANNE BERGER; CATHEY AGAINST OFFICE OF THE
MATTINGLY; BLAKE WOLLAM; COMMISSIONER ET AL. FOR
18 and KRYSTAL MOYER, on behalf of LACK OF JURISDICTION
themselves, and all others who are
19 similarly situated, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
20 Plaintiffs, MOTION TO DISMISS
21 v.
Date: October 5, 2020
22 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER Time: 1:30 p.m.
OF BASEBALL, an unincorporated Ctrm: 7D
23 association doing business as MAJOR Judge: Hon. Dale S. Fischer
LEAGUE BASEBALL, ROBERT D.
24 MANFRED, JR.; AZPB Limited Date Filed: April 20, 2020
Partnership; AZPB I, INC; ATLANTA
25 NATIONAL LEAGUE BASEBALL Trial Date: None set
CLUB INC.; ATLANTA NATIONAL
26 LEAGUE BASEBALL CLUB, LLC;
BALTIMORE ORIOLES LIMITED
27 PARTNERSHIP; BALTIMORE
ORIOLES INC; BALTIMORE
28 BASEBALL CLUB INC.; BOSTON
RED SOX BASEBALL CLUB
1
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 2 of 29 Page ID #:914

1 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; FENWAY


SPORTS GROUP LLC; NEW
2 ENGLAND SPORTS VENTURES,
LLC; CHICAGO CUBS BASEBALL
3 CLUB, LLC; CHICAGO WHITE SOX
LTD.; CHISOX CORP.; THE
4 CINCINNATI REDS, LLC;
CLEVELAND INDIANS BASEBALL
5 COMPANY LP; COLORADO
BASEBALL PARTNERSHIP;
6 COLORADO ROCKIES BASEBALL
CLUB, LTD.; OLYMPIA
7 ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; DETROIT
TIGERS, INC.; CRANE CAPITAL
8 GROUP; HOUSTON ASTROS INC.;
HOUSTON ASTROS LLC; KANSAS
9 CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP.;
KANSAS CITY ROYALS
10 BASEBALL CLUB, INC.; ANGELS
BASEBALL LP; MORENO
11 BASEBALL LP; GUGGENHEIM
BASEBALL MANAGEMENT LLC;
12 LOS ANGELES DODGERS, INC.;
MIAMI MARLINS L.P.; MIAMI
13 MARLINS, INC.; MILWAUKEE
BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, INC.;
14 MILWAUKEE BREWERS
HOLDINGS LLC; MINNESOTA
15 TWINS, LLC; STERLING
DOUBLEDAY ENTERPRISES LP;
16 METS PARTNERS INC.; NEW
YORK YANKEES PARTNERSHIP;
17 YANKEE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES
LLC; ATHLETICS INVESTMENT
18 GROUP LLC.; PHILLIES LP;
PITTSBURGH ASSOCIATES LP;
19 PITTSBURGH BASEBALL, INC.;
PADRES, L.P.; SAN FRANCISCO
20 BASEBALL ASSOCIATES L.P.; THE
BASEBALL CLUB OF SEATTLE
21 LLLP; BASEBALL OF SEATTLE
INC.; ST. LOUIS CARDINALS LLC;
22 ST. LOUIS NATIONAL BASEBALL
CLUB INC.; TAMPA BAY DEVIL
23 RAYS LTD.; RANGERS BASEBALL
EXPRESS LLC; ROGERS BLUE
24 JAYS BASEBALL PARTNERSHIP;
TORONTO BLUE JAYS BASEBALL
25 LTD; WASHINGTON NATIONALS
BASEBALL CLUB LLC;
26 TICKETMASTER LLC; LIVE
NATION WORLDWIDE, INC.; LIVE
27 NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.;
STUBHUB, INC.; LAST MINUTE
28 TRANSACTIONS, INC.; and JOHN
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-75,
2
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 3 of 29 Page ID #:915

1
Defendants.
2

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
3
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 4 of 29 Page ID #:916

1 List of represented Defendants joining in this motion (continued):


2
ROBERT D. MANFRED, JR.; AZPB LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AZPB I, INC;
ATLANTA NATIONAL LEAGUE BASEBALL CLUB INC.; ATLANTA
3 NATIONAL LEAGUE BASEBALL CLUB, LLC; BALTIMORE ORIOLES
4 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; BALTIMORE ORIOLES INC.; BALTIMORE
BASEBALL CLUB INC.; BOSTON RED SOX BASEBALL CLUB LIMITED
5 PARTNERSHIP; FENWAY SPORTS GROUP LLC; NEW ENGLAND SPORTS
6 VENTURES, LLC; CHICAGO CUBS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC; CHICAGO
WHITE SOX LTD.; CHISOX CORP.; THE CINCINNATI REDS, LLC;
7 CLEVELAND INDIANS BASEBALL COMPANY LP; COLORADO
8 BASEBALL PARTNERSHIP; COLORADO ROCKIES BASEBALL CLUB,
LTD.; OLYMPIA ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; DETROIT TIGERS, INC.; CRANE
9 CAPITAL GROUP; HOUSTON ASTROS INC.; HOUSTON ASTROS LLC;
10 KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP.; KANSAS CITY ROYALS
BASEBALL CLUB, INC.; ANGELS BASEBALL LP; MORENO BASEBALL
11 LP; GUGGENHEIM BASEBALL MANAGEMENT LLC; LOS ANGELES
12 DODGERS, INC.; MIAMI MARLINS L.P.; MIAMI MARLINS, INC.;
MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, INC.; MILWAUKEE BREWERS
13 HOLDINGS LLC; MINNESOTA TWINS, LLC; STERLING DOUBLEDAY
14 ENTERPRISES LP; METS PARTNERS INC.; NEW YORK YANKEES
PARTNERSHIP; YANKEE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LLC; PHILLIES LP;
15 PITTSBURGH ASSOCIATES LP; PITTSBURGH BASEBALL, INC.; PADRES,
16 L.P.; THE BASEBALL CLUB OF SEATTLE LLLP; BASEBALL OF SEATTLE
INC.; ST. LOUIS CARDINALS LLC; ST. LOUIS NATIONAL BASEBALL
17 CLUB INC.; TAMPA BAY RAYS LTD.; RANGERS BASEBALL EXPRESS
18 LLC; ROGERS BLUE JAYS BASEBALL PARTNERSHIP; TORONTO BLUE
JAYS BASEBALL LTD; WASHINGTON NATIONALS BASEBALL CLUB
19 LLC
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
4
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 5 of 29 Page ID #:917

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3

4
I.  INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 11 

5
II.  BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 13 

6
A.  COVID-19 Pandemic Delays Start of MLB Season........................... 13 

7
B.  Plaintiffs File This Lawsuit ................................................................. 14 

8
C.  Clubs Set Refund Policies and Refund Plaintiffs. .............................. 16 

9
III.  ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 17 

10
A.  Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Clubs Based Outside of California
Should Be Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. ................... 18 
11 1.  The Court Lacks General Jurisdiction Because the Out-
12
Of-State Clubs Are Not “At Home” in California. .................. 19 

13
2.  The Court Lacks Specific Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State
Clubs Because Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged and Cannot
14
Allege a Connection Between the Claims Against Them
and California. .......................................................................... 20 
15 B.  Plaintiffs Lack Article III Standing to Sue Defendants From
16
Which No Plaintiff Purchased a Ticket. ............................................. 23 

17
C.  Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Moot................................................................ 25 

18
IV.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 28 

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
5
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 6 of 29 Page ID #:918

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page(s)
3 Cases
4
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona,
5 520 U.S. 43 (1997) ............................................................................................. 26
6 Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct.,
7 480 U.S. 102 (1987) ........................................................................................... 23

8 Ballin v. Russ Bassett Corp.,


No. 17-CV-3981 PSG, 2017 WL 10527368 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6,
9
2017) ............................................................................................................. 27, 28
10
Berdux v. Project Time & Cost, Inc.,
11 669 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ............................................................. 22
12
Boschetto v. Hansing,
13 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................... 18, 21
14 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct.,
15 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) ....................................................................................... 20
16 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
471 U.S. 462 (1985) ..................................................................................... 21, 22
17

18 Calder v. Jones,
465 U.S. 783 (1984) ........................................................................................... 20
19

20
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez,
136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) ......................................................................................... 26
21
In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig.,
22 154 F. Supp. 3d 918 (N.D. Cal. 2015)................................................................ 24
23
In re Carrier IQ, Inc.,
24 78 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2015)................................................................ 25
25 Chen v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
26 819 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 27
27 Daimler AG v. Bauman,
28 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) ................................................................................... 18, 19

6
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 7 of 29 Page ID #:919

1 Easter v. Am. W. Fin.,


2 381 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2004) ........................................................................ 24, 25

3 EcoDisc Tech. AG v. DVD Format/Logo Licensing Corp.,


711 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (C.D. Cal. 2010) .............................................................. 22
4

5 F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Super. Ct.,


130 Cal. App. 4th 782 (2005) ............................................................................. 23
6
Get Outdoors II, LLC v. City of San Diego,
7
506 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 24
8
Golden Gate Transactional Indep. Serv., Inc. v. California,
9 No. CV 18- 08093 SJO, 2019 WL 4222452 (C.D. Cal. May 1,
10 2019) ................................................................................................................... 24
11 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A. v. Brown,
131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) ................................................................................. 19, 20
12

13 Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y. v. Heckler,


464 U.S. 67 (1983) ............................................................................................. 24
14
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
15
504 U.S. 555 (1992) ..................................................................................... 24, 25
16
Manton v. Cal. Sports, Inc.,
17 493 F. Supp. 496 (N.D. Ga. 1980) ..................................................................... 19
18
Martinez v. Aero Caribbean,
19 764 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 19
20 Morrill v. Scott Fin. Corp.,
21 873 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 20
22 Ostheimer v. Comm’r,
23
No. Civ. 91-102-M-CCL, 1995 WL 723224 (D. Mont. Sept. 18,
1995) ................................................................................................................... 26
24
Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen,
25
141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 22
26
Payne v. Office of the Comm’r of Baseball,
27 No. 15-CV-03229-YGR, 2016 WL 1394369 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8,
28 2016) ....................................................................................................... 12, 14, 19

7
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 8 of 29 Page ID #:920

1 Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy,


2 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 18

3 Picot v. Weston,
780 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 22
4

5 Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing Co.,


598 F.2d 491 (9th Cir. 1979) .............................................................................. 19
6
Pilgrim v. Gen. Motors Co.,
7
408 F. Supp. 3d 1160 (C.D. Cal. 2019) .............................................................. 18
8
Rogers v. Lyft, Inc.,
9 No. 20-CV-01938-VC, 2020 WL 1684151 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2020) ............... 11
10
Rudolph v. Cal. Two Bunch Return, LLC,
11 No. CV-16-00886 AB, 2017 WL 7101147 (C.D. Cal. May 19,
2017) ................................................................................................................... 26
12

13 Rush v. Savchuk,
444 U.S. 320 (1980) ........................................................................................... 18
14
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,
15
374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 21
16
Shahar v. Hotwire, Inc.,
17 No. C 12-06027 JSW, 2013 WL 12176843 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15,
18 2013) ................................................................................................................... 25
19 Sher v. Johnson,
20
911 F.2d 1357 (9th Cir. 1990) ...................................................................... 21, 22

21 Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc.,


146 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2006) ........................................................................... 21
22

23
St. Clair v. City of Chico,
880 F.2d 199 (9th Cir. 1989) .............................................................................. 27
24
Stanford Ranch, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co.,
25
89 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 21
26
Summers v. Earth Island Inst.,
27 555 U.S. 488 (2009) ..................................................................................... 27, 28
28
8
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 9 of 29 Page ID #:921

1 Walden v. Fiore,
2 571 U.S. 277 (2014) ..................................................................................... 19, 20

3 Winebarger v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency,


411 F. Supp. 3d 1070 (C.D. Cal. 2019) .............................................................. 27
4

5 Statutes

6 28 U.S.C. § 1391...................................................................................................... 19
7 Rules
8
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ............................................................................................... 10, 27
9
Other Authorities
10
Wright & Miller, 7A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1757 (3d ed.) ................................ 18
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
9
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 10 of 29 Page ID #:922

1 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:


2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 5, 2020 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon
3 thereafter as this matter may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable Dale S.
4 Fischer, located at 350 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, the Office
5 of the Commissioner, Robert D. Manfred, Jr., and the legal entities affiliated with
6 28 of the 30 Major League Baseball Clubs1 will and hereby do move to dismiss
7 Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice (the “Motion”).
8 This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to Local
9 Rule 7-3, which took place on July 21, 2020. Baseball Defendants submit this
10 Motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). This Motion comprises this Notice of Motion,
11 the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the [Proposed] Order, the
12 pleadings and other documents on file in this case, all other matters of which the
13 Court may take judicial notice, and any further argument or evidence that may be
14 received by the Court at the hearing.
15 Dated: July 29, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
16 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
17
18 By: /s/ R. Adam Lauridsen
JOHN W. KEKER
19 R. ADAM LAURIDSEN
BENJAMIN D. ROTHSTEIN
20 BAILEY W. HEAPS
21 Attorneys for Defendants
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
22 OF BASEBALL, an unincorporated
association doing business as MAJOR
23 LEAGUE BASEBALL, et al.
24
25
26
27
28
1
A complete list of Defendants joining in this motion appears on page 4.
10
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 11 of 29 Page ID #:923

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES


2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 This case is the latest example of litigation “which was filed hurriedly in an
4 attempt to capitalize on the coronavirus pandemic” and “is riddled with defects.”
5 Rogers v. Lyft, Inc., No. 20-CV-01938-VC, 2020 WL 1684151, at *1 (N.D. Cal.
6 Apr. 7, 2020). Plaintiffs filed suit in April alleging an entitlement to immediate
7 refunds for any tickets they had purchased to 2020 Major League Baseball
8 (“MLB”) games. At the time they filed the Amended Complaint, none of the
9 games at issue had been canceled; instead, MLB and its clubs postponed the start of
10 the season to consider when and how to play safely. As this once-in-a-century
11 pandemic has unfolded, all 30 MLB clubs—including the clubs from which
12 Plaintiffs allegedly purchased tickets—have implemented policies offering refunds
13 and credits for tickets sold to games now impacted by the COVID-19 Pandemic
14 (“Impacted Games”). In short, Plaintiffs are now pursuing refunds they have
15 already received.
16 Mootness is just one of the glaring jurisdictional defects in this lawsuit. In
17 their haste to bring a nationwide class, Plaintiffs sued the Office of the
18 Commissioner of Baseball, the Commissioner himself, and entities affiliated with
19 all 30 clubs (collectively, “Baseball Defendants”). But the named Plaintiffs
20 allegedly purchased tickets from only five of the 30 clubs, and only two of those
21 five clubs are based in California. This means that most of the defendants are
22 located out of state and are not subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction. It also
23 means that most of the defendants are entities that sold no tickets to the Plaintiffs,
24 and against whom Plaintiffs have no live case or controversy. These personal
25 jurisdiction and standing defects require dismissal as to these defendants before the
26 Court even reaches the Plaintiffs’ obvious mootness problem (which, if the Court
27 does reach it, requires dismissal too).
28 This Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is brought by MLB,
11
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 12 of 29 Page ID #:924

1 Commissioner Robert D. Manfred, Jr., entities associated with the 25 MLB clubs
2 based outside of California, and entities associated with the three California-based
3 clubs from which Plaintiffs do not allege any direct ticket purchases—the Los
4 Angeles Dodgers, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, and San Diego Padres.2 These
5 Defendants are grouped together here because they share one or more of the same
6 basic defenses against this ill-conceived lawsuit proceeding any further.3
7 First, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the entities associated with
8 the 25 MLB clubs based outside of California (the “Out-of-State Clubs”). No
9 general jurisdiction exists because the Out-of-State Clubs lack systematic and
10 continuous contacts with the state of California—they are not incorporated here and
11 their principal places of business are elsewhere. And it is well-established that
12 “merely playing games in the state against California-based teams” is “not
13 sufficient to subject the Out-of-State Clubs to general personal jurisdiction within
14 California.” Payne v. Office of the Comm’r of Baseball, No. 15-CV-03229-YGR,
15 2016 WL 1394369, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2016). Nor do Out-of-State Clubs
16 subject themselves to specific personal jurisdiction within California by selling
17 tickets to home games taking place outside of California. Plaintiffs do not allege
18 any meaningful connection between their claims against the Out-of-State clubs and
19 California.
20 Second, and independent of any personal jurisdiction arguments, Plaintiffs
21 lack standing to sue any of the Baseball Defendants from which they did not
22 directly purchase tickets (“No-Purchase Defendants”). The No-Purchase
23 Defendants include entities affiliated with 25 clubs, MLB itself, and Commissioner
24 Manfred. If the Court finds that Plaintiffs lack personal jurisdiction over the Out-
25
2
The entities associated with the two other California-based clubs, the Oakland
26 Athletics and the San Francisco Giants have concurrently filed a Motion to Dismiss
or, in the Alternative, to Compel Arbitration raising independent grounds for
27 dismissal.
3
28 Appended to this Motion as Exhibit 1 is a chart reflecting which of the Baseball
Defendants seeks dismissal on which specific grounds.
12
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 13 of 29 Page ID #:925

1 of-State Clubs, then it need only resolve Defendants’ standing arguments as to the
2 entities affiliated with the Los Angeles Dodgers, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim,
3 and San Diego Padres, MLB itself, and Commissioner Manfred. Plaintiffs do not
4 allege that any of these Defendants sold them tickets or owed them refunds.
5 Third, even if any of Plaintiffs’ claims survive those arguments, the Court
6 should still dismiss them because they are moot. Plaintiffs lack a live case or
7 controversy against the clubs from which they directly purchased tickets (“Direct-
8 Purchase Defendants”) because those clubs have already paid full refunds or, if
9 Plaintiffs so chose, issued credits to be used for future games. Prior to filing this
10 Motion, Defendants repeatedly requested that Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss these
11 claims to save the Court and the parties the time and expense of adjudicating them.
12 Although two previously named Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims, the
13 remaining Plaintiffs refused, despite pursuing claims that are indistinguishable on
14 mootness grounds from those voluntarily dismissed.
15 Plaintiffs’ complaint amounts to nothing more than an issue-spotter for
16 jurisdictional defects. As explained more fully below, all of Plaintiffs claims
17 against the moving Baseball Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice.
18 II. BACKGROUND
19 A. COVID-19 Pandemic Delays Start of MLB Season.
20 This case arises out of the COVID-19 pandemic. The initial spread of the
21 virus in the United States coincided with preparations by the thirty Major League
22 Baseball clubs, the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball doing business as
23 Major League Baseball, and Commissioner Robert D. Manfred Jr., for the 2020
24 baseball season, which was slated to begin March 26. Corr. Am. Class Action
25 Compl., ECF 42-1 (“FAC”) ¶ 74.
26 On March 12, as cases of COVID-19 spiked, MLB announced that “in the
27 interests of the safety and well-being of our players, Clubs, and our millions of
28 loyal fans,” the start of the season would be delayed by at least two weeks. Id. ¶ 75.
13
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 14 of 29 Page ID #:926

1 The announcement emphasized that the decision was interim in nature and subject
2 to change. Id. It went on to state that MLB and the clubs were “preparing a variety
3 of contingency plans” and would announce the “effects on the schedule at an
4 appropriate time” as well as “remain flexible as events warrant.” Id. Shortly after
5 that announcement, on March 15, the Centers for Disease Control issued
6 nationwide guidance restricting gatherings of more than 50 people for eight weeks.
7 Id. ¶ 76. The next day, on March 16, MLB announced that the opening of the
8 regular season would be delayed “in accordance with that guidance.” Id.
9 B. Plaintiffs File This Lawsuit.
10 On April 20, two New York residents, Plaintiffs Matthew Ajzenman and
11 Susan Terry-Bazer, filed the original Complaint in this action purportedly on behalf
12 of a class of similarly situated individuals who had purchased tickets to 2020 MLB
13 games. Plaintiffs’ sued the Baseball Defendants,4 as well online ticket vendors
14 Ticketmaster LLC (“Ticketmaster”) and Stubhub, Inc. (“Stubhub”), together with
15 their parent companies and affiliates (collectively, the “Ticket Merchant
16 Defendants”). The thrust of the original Complaint was that the defendants
17 committed various torts by not “immediately refund[ing] baseball ticket purchases,
18 including all ancillary fees” for all 2020 games, regardless of when they were
19 scheduled to be played, following the initial decision to postpone games. Compl.
20 ¶ 3 and § VIII.C.
21 On April 29, Plaintiffs filed a first Amended Complaint, adding eight named
22 plaintiffs, who allegedly purchased tickets to additional 2020 MLB games, and 75
23 unnamed Doe defendants. FAC ¶¶ 9–31, 73. On July 28, 2020, Plaintiffs Blake
24 Wollam, who alleged a purchase from the Cleveland Indians, and Cathey
25 Mattingly, who alleged a purchase from the Los Angeles Dodgers, voluntarily
26
27 4
The Baseball Defendants include all Defendants named in the Amended
Complaint except for Ticketmaster LLC; Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.; Live Nation
28 Entertainment, Inc.; StubHub, Inc.; and Last Minute Transactions, Inc.
14
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 15 of 29 Page ID #:927

1 dismissed their claims. See ECF No. 75; ECF No. 76. Those two individuals—like
2 all the remaining Plaintiffs—received refunds or opted for credits in place of an
3 available refund pursuant to the clubs’ policies for Impacted Games. See Dodgers
4 Declaration ¶¶ 3, 6; Indians Declaration ¶¶ 3–4. Although the remaining Plaintiffs’
5 claims are factually and legally indistinguishable from those voluntarily dismissed,
6 the remaining Plaintiffs refuse to abandon this action.
7 The operative Amended Complaint now names eight total plaintiffs who
8 allegedly purchased tickets to be played at the ballparks of seven different clubs:
9 the Mets and the Yankees in New York; the Cubs in Illinois; the Brewers in
10 Wisconsin; the Phillies in Pennsylvania; and the Athletics and the Giants in
11 California. FAC ¶¶ 9–31. Of those clubs, only five—the Cubs, the Phillies, the
12 Mets, the Athletics, and the Giants—allegedly directly sold tickets to any Plaintiff.
13 Id. ¶¶ 9, 14, 18, 23, 25, 27, 30. 5 Tickets to the Yankees and the Brewers games
14 were allegedly sold through Ticketmaster and Stubhub, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 11–13,
15 18–22. There is no allegation that Plaintiffs held tickets to games to be played at
16 the ballparks of any of the other 23 clubs. See generally id. ¶¶ 9–31. Nor is there
17 any allegation that MLB or Commissioner Manfred conducted ticket sales. See
18 generally id.
19 For most of the Baseball Defendants, all of the activity alleged in the
20 Amended Complaint occurred outside of California—including the various named
21 Plaintiffs’ ticket purchases, the nationwide locations of the games for which they
22 purchased tickets, and the nationwide locations of the various clubs whose ticket
23 refund policies are alleged in the complaint. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 14, 18, 23, 25, 27, 30,
24 41, 44, 50, 54, 56–57, 60.
25
5
Fans can purchase tickets to single games, see FAC ¶¶ 14, 23, 27, 30, or they can
26 purchase ticket packages to see some portion—or all—of their favorite club’s home
slate, id. ¶¶ 9, 14, 18, 25. In addition to the clubs themselves, online ticket
27 merchants can sell tickets to MLB games. Id. ¶¶ 11, 16, 18. Neither MLB nor
Commissioner Manfred sell tickets to regular-season games. See generally id.
28 ¶¶ 9–31.
15
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 16 of 29 Page ID #:928

1 Plaintiffs allege five causes of action against all Baseball Defendants for
2 alleged violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Count 1) and
3 Unfair Competition Law (Counts 2 and 3), and state common-law claims for Civil
4 Conspiracy (Count 4) and Unjust Enrichment (Count 5). Plaintiffs style the FAC as
5 seeking only equitable relief; however, the gravamen of the complaint is a request
6 for refunds. See FAC ¶¶ 117, 125, 129, 134, 137, § VIII.
7 For the convenience of the court, the relevant allegations of the named
8 Plaintiffs are summarized in the table below:
9
10 Home team Alleged ticket Purchaser Alleged Game Citation
purchaser(s) citizenship ticket seller information to FAC
11 Oakland Benny Wong California Athletics Multi-game ¶¶ 14–15
12 Athletics Package
San Benny Wong California Giants Single game ¶¶ 14–15
13 Francisco Alex Canela California Stubhub Single game ¶¶ 16–17
14 Giants
New York Matthew New York Mets 20-game ¶¶ 9–10
15 Mets Ajzenman package
16 New York Susan Terry- New York Ticketmaster May 9 game ¶¶ 11-13
Yankees Bazer
17 Chicago Amanda & Wisconsin Cubs 14-game ¶¶ 18-22
18 Cubs Jeremy package
Woolley
19 Anne Berger California Cubs Single game ¶¶ 23-24
20 Milwaukee Amanda & Wisconsin Stubhub Single game ¶¶ 18-22
Brewers Jeremy
21
Woolley
22 Philadelphia Krystal Moyer Maryland Phillies Apr. 19 ¶¶ 30-31
Phillies game
23
24 C. Clubs Set Refund Policies and Refund Plaintiffs.
25 As Plaintiffs allude to in their Amended Complaint, news reports as far back
26 as April indicated that the 30 MLB clubs would be releasing ticket policies for the
27 2020 regular season to address games impacted by the Pandemic. FAC ¶ 3. In
28 general, shortly after the postponement of opening day for the 2020 regular season,
16
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 17 of 29 Page ID #:929

1 clubs implemented policies offering fans refunds or credits for Impacted Games on
2 a rolling basis. Indeed, each of the 30 clubs has periodically updated its website to
3 catalogue how it would handle requests for refunds.6 Once clubs began to prepare
4 for the 2020 season’s July re-start and MLB announced a new schedule for games
5 to be played, for now, without fans in ballparks, clubs further updated their policies.
6 The moving Direct-Purchase Defendants—that is, the Cubs, which sold tickets to
7 Plaintiffs Wooley and Berger; the Phillies, which sold tickets to Plaintiff Moyer;
8 and the Mets, which sold tickets to Plaintiff Ajzenman—are no exception. As set
9 forth in greater detail infra, each club has offered fans who held tickets to
10 postponed games refunds, account credits, or both. In fact, all Plaintiffs who
11 allegedly purchased tickets from the Direct-Purchase Defendants in this motion
12 have received refunds or credits already.
13 III. ARGUMENT
14 This Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims against the
15 moving Baseball Defendants.7 Specifically, (A) the Court cannot exercise personal
16 jurisdiction over the 25 clubs located outside of California; (B) Plaintiffs lack
17 Article III standing to sue the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball,
18 Commissioner Manfred, and the 25 clubs which did not sell tickets to any Plaintiff;
19 and (C) the claims of all Plaintiffs who purchased tickets directly from the clubs
20 bringing this motion are moot because those Plaintiffs have already received
21 refunds or opted to receive credits for their ticket purchases. The Motion to
22
6
See, e.g., See https://www.mlb.com/athletics/team/fan-update (Oakland
23 Athletics); https://www.mlb.com/giants/fans/resource-center/ticketing (San
Francisco Giants); ; https://www.mlb.com/phillies/schedule/update (Philadelphia
24 Phillies); https://www.mlb.com/cubs/team/statement (Chicago Cubs);
https://www.mlb.com/mets/team/updates (New York Mets).
25 7
This Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is brought on behalf of the Office
of the Commissioner, Commissioner Manfred, and the entities affiliated with the 28
26 clubs specified on page 4. A separate Motion to Dismiss and to Compel Arbitration
is filed concurrently with this motion on behalf of the entities affiliated with the
27 Giants and the Athletics. The moving Baseball Defendants expressly reserve their
rights to bring a motion to compel arbitration, in the event that this Court finds it
28 has jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims.
17
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 18 of 29 Page ID #:930

1 Dismiss should be granted.


2 A. Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Clubs Based Outside of California
Should Be Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
3
4 The Amended Complaint does not support the assertion of personal
5 jurisdiction over the vast majority of Baseball Defendants. It is fundamental that a
6 court must have personal jurisdiction over “each defendant” before it. Rush v.
7 Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320, 332 (1980). That requirement, which derives from
8 constitutional protections, applies with equal force in a purported class action. See
9 e.g. Pilgrim v. Gen. Motors Co., 408 F. Supp. 3d 1160, 1167 (C.D. Cal. 2019)
10 (“Whether an action is brought as a class action has no real effect on whether a
11 defendant can challenge a court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over it.”); Wright
12 & Miller, 7A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1757 (3d ed.) (“In actions involving a
13 plaintiff class, jurisdiction over defendants is acquired . . . as in any other action.”).
14 Plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating personal jurisdiction as to each of
15 the Out-of-State Clubs. See Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th
16 Cir. 2006); see also Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2008)
17 (plaintiffs bear the burden of alleging a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction).
18 There are two forms of personal jurisdiction: (1) “general or all-purpose
19 jurisdiction,” and (2) “specific or conduct-linked jurisdiction.” Daimler AG v.
20 Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 751 (2014).
21 Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate either basis for personal jurisdiction as
22 to any Out-of-State Club. Plaintiffs’ allegations amount to nothing more than a
23 cryptic assertion that the court has personal jurisdiction because some of the MLB
24 clubs are located in California and a subset of Plaintiffs were allegedly harmed by
25 two of those California-based clubs, “among other reasons.” FAC ¶ 6. That
26 allegation omits any reference to the other 25 MLB clubs that—as the FAC
27 acknowledges—are all domiciled outside the state of California. As to those Out-
28 of-State Clubs, the Complaint’s failure to allege a single fact supporting personal
18
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 19 of 29 Page ID #:931

1 jurisdiction requires dismissal.8


2 1. The Court Lacks General Jurisdiction Because the Out-of-
State Clubs Are Not “At Home” in California.
3
4 “The paradigm all-purpose forums for general jurisdiction are a corporation’s
5 place of incorporation and principal place of business.” Daimler, 571 U.S. at 749,
6 (2014). A court may assert general jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant only
7 when that defendant’s “affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic
8 as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires
9 Operations S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011) (internal quotations
10 omitted). “Only in an ‘exceptional case’” will the court have general jurisdiction
11 anywhere other than “a corporation’s place of incorporation and principal place of
12 business.” Martinez v. Aero Caribbean, 764 F.3d 1062, 1070 (9th Cir. 2014)
13 (quoting Daimler, 571 U.S. at 761 n.19).
14 Here, the Amended Complaint acknowledges that the Out-of-State Clubs are
15 “located in,” and play their home games in, states other than California. FAC ¶¶
16 32, 37–48, 51–55, 57–58, 61–66. It contains no allegation that any specific Out-of-
17 State Club was scheduled to play in California for any of the ticketed games, but
18 even if it did, “merely playing games in the state against California-based teams [is]
19 not sufficient to subject [out-of-state clubs] to general personal jurisdiction within
20 California.” Payne, 2016 WL 1394369, at *5; see also Manton v. Cal. Sports, Inc.,
21 493 F. Supp. 496, 496–98 (N.D. Ga. 1980). In short, the Amended Complaint does
22 not allege any facts to support a claim that any Out-of-State Club has such a
23
8
Plaintiffs’ attempt to join numerous out-of-state defendants based on wholly
24 extraterritorial conduct also raises intractable venue problems. Plaintiffs allege that
venue is proper in this district “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).” FAC ¶ 7.
25 That allegation is plainly insufficient as § 1391(b)(1) applies only to cases in which
“all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located.” 28 U.S.C.
26 § 1391(b)(1). Nor can Plaintiffs carry their burden of showing that there is any
other basis for venue in this district. See id. § 1391(b)(2)–(3); Piedmont Label Co.
27 v. Sun Garden Packing Co., 598 F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1979) (“Plaintiff had the
burden of showing that venue was properly laid” in the relevant district). Thus,
28 dismissal is also required because venue is improper in this Court.
19
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 20 of 29 Page ID #:932

1 “continuous and systematic” presence as to render it “essentially at home” in


2 California. Goodyear, 131 S. Ct. at 2851. Plaintiffs therefore have not met their
3 burden of demonstrating general personal jurisdiction over the Out-of-State Clubs.
4 2. The Court Lacks Specific Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State
Clubs Because Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged and Cannot
5 Allege a Connection Between the Claims Against Them and
California.
6
Specific jurisdiction is “confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, or
7
connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction.” Bristol-Myers
8
Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017). The test for whether a court
9
may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant “focuses on the
10
relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Walden v. Fiore,
11
571 U.S. 277, 283–84 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Like general
12
jurisdiction, the focus for specific jurisdiction is squarely on the activities of the
13
defendant: the relationship between the defendant and the forum “must arise out of
14
contacts that the defendant himself create[d] with the forum State.” Morrill v. Scott
15
Fin. Corp., 873 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Walden, 571 U.S. at 284).
16
Courts in this circuit employ a three-part test to determine whether a
17
defendant’s contacts with California suffice to establish specific jurisdiction:
18
“1) the nonresident defendant must have purposefully availed himself of the
19
privilege of conducting activities in the forum by some affirmative act or conduct;
20
2) plaintiff’s claim must arise out of or result from the defendant’s forum-related
21
activities; and 3) exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.” Roth, 942 F.2d at
22
620–21. In a case involving multiple defendants, “[e]ach defendant’s contacts with
23
the forum State must be assessed individually.” Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790
24
(1984).
25
Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts that would support a finding of a
26
meaningful connection between California and Plaintiffs’ claims against the Out-of-
27
State Clubs. For example, purposeful availment can be shown through “evidence
28
of the defendant’s actions in the forum, such as executing or performing a contract
20
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 21 of 29 Page ID #:933

1 there.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir.
2 2004); see also Stanford Ranch, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 89 F.3d 618, 625 (9th
3 Cir. 1996) (“If a claim is dependent upon the existence of an underlying contract,
4 the claim sounds in contract, as opposed to tort.”). Here, Plaintiffs have not alleged
5 that the Out-of-State Clubs have engaged in any conduct in or aimed at California.
6 Plaintiffs Ajzenman, Terry-Bazer, the Woolleys, and Moyer, live in New York,
7 Wisconsin, and Maryland. Those Plaintiffs allege that they purchased tickets for
8 games to be played in states other than California: New York, Illinois, Wisconsin,
9 and Pennsylvania. Thus, the transactions, the contemplated performance, the
10 alleged statutory violations, and the alleged harm all occurred outside of California.
11 In short, the claims wholly lack connection with California.
12 The complaint alleges that only one California-based Plaintiff purchased
13 tickets from an Out-of-State Club—Anne Berger, who alleges that she resides in
14 California and purchased tickets to see a Chicago Cubs game in Illinois. FAC ¶ 23.
15 That bare allegation is insufficient to give this court personal jurisdiction over the
16 Cubs, because “the mere existence of a contract with a party in the forum state does
17 not constitute sufficient minimum contacts for jurisdiction.” Sher v. Johnson, 911
18 F.2d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471
19 U.S. 462, 478 (1985) (finding that “an individual’s contract with an out-of-state
20 party alone” is “clearly” insufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction).
21 Indeed, courts have repeatedly held that the “lone transaction for the sale of one
22 item” to an in-state plaintiff by an out-of-state seller is insufficient to establish that
23 a defendant “purposefully availed [itself] of the privilege of doing business in
24 California.” Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1017 (finding no specific jurisdiction over
25 nonresident defendant based on the sale of a good to a California resident over
26 website generally available to consumers nationwide); Shisler v. Sanfer Sports
27 Cars, Inc., 146 Cal. App. 4th 1254, 1261–62 (2006) (finding no personal
28 jurisdiction over nonresident defendant based on a “one-time transaction” with a
21
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 22 of 29 Page ID #:934

1 California resident in the absence of “evidence that defendant ever expressly


2 reached out to California,” or otherwise targeted California residents for sales).
3 Instead, to determine whether a contract with a California resident gives rise
4 to jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, courts look to the defendant’s actions
5 in California—not the plaintiff’s—including “prior negotiations and contemplated
6 future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties’ actual
7 course of dealing.” Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2015)
8 (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479). “The most important factor for
9 determining jurisdiction is often where the parties intend for performance of a
10 contract to take place.” Berdux v. Project Time & Cost, Inc., 669 F. Supp. 2d 1094,
11 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2009). The FAC alleges only that Berger purchased tickets to see
12 a Cubs game “at their home park, Wrigley Field, in Chicago.” FAC ¶ 23. Any
13 connection between the Cubs and California as a result of Berger’s unilateral
14 decision to make that purchase is too “random” and “attenuated” to support specific
15 jurisdiction. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 478.
16 Nor can Plaintiffs impute the contacts of the in-state defendants with
17 California to the Out-of-State Clubs based on allegations of a conspiracy. Where
18 there is no federal statute governing personal jurisdiction, California district courts
19 “apply the law of California, the state in which the district court sits” to determine
20 whether the exercise of jurisdiction is proper. Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen,
21 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 1998). “California law does not recognize
22 conspiracy as a basis for acquiring jurisdiction over a foreign defendant.” EcoDisc
23 Tech. AG v. DVD Format/Logo Licensing Corp., 711 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1089 (C.D.
24 Cal. 2010) (collecting cases); see also Sher, 911 F.2d at 1365 (refusing to impute
25 contacts between related entities because “jurisdiction over each defendant must be
26 established individually”). Because there are no allegations that the Out-of-State
27 Clubs themselves had sufficient minimum contacts with California to create
28
22
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 23 of 29 Page ID #:935

1 personal jurisdiction, they must be dismissed.9


2 B. Plaintiffs Lack Article III Standing to Sue Defendants From
Which No Plaintiff Purchased a Ticket.
3
4 Despite having sued all 30 clubs, the remaining Plaintiffs allege direct
5 purchases of tickets from only five clubs: the Chicago Cubs, FAC ¶ 18, 19, 23; the
6 Philadelphia Phillies, id. ¶ 30; the New York Mets, id. ¶ 9; the Oakland A’s, id.
7 ¶ 14; and the San Francisco Giants, id. ¶ 14, 16. No Plaintiff alleges that he or she
8 purchased tickets directly from any of the other Baseball Defendants.10 Claims
9 against the 25 clubs, the Office of the Commissioner, and Commissioner Manfred
10 must therefore be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. If the Court dismisses
11 claims against the Out-of-State Clubs on personal jurisdiction grounds discussed
12 above, it need only reach this argument for the Los Angeles Dodgers, Los Angeles
13 9
The Court should be particularly wary of assertions of personal jurisdiction for
14 Defendants, including those affiliated with the Toronto Blue Jays (Rogers Blue Jays
Baseball Partnership and Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Ltd.), that are foreign entities.
15 “The ‘unique burdens’ placed on foreign entities by having to defend against a
lawsuit in a different country ‘should have significant weight in assessing the
16 reasonableness of stretching the long arm of personal jurisdiction over national
borders.’” Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct., 480 U.S. 102, 114 (1987); see also
17 F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Super. Ct., 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 795 (2005) (“[W]e
apply jurisdictional principles with an abundance of caution where the defendant is
18 a foreign corporation.”).
10
Plaintiffs have sued a variety of entities that they believe (sometimes mistakenly)
19 own or otherwise control the 30 MLB clubs. The Defendants that allegedly cover
these 25 clubs are from whom no Named Plaintiff directly purchased a ticket
20 include: Angels Baseball LP; Moreno Baseball LP; Houston Astros Inc.; Houston
Astros LLC; Crane Capital Group; Atlanta National League Baseball Club Inc.;
21 Atlanta National League Baseball Club, LLC; Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club,
Inc.; Milwaukee Brewers Holdings LLC; Rogers Blue Jays Baseball Partnership;
22 Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Ltd; St. Louis Cardinals LLC; St. Louis National
Baseball Club Inc.; AZPB Limited Partnership; AZPB, Inc; Cleveland Indians
23 Baseball Company LP; Washington Nationals Baseball Club LLC; Baseball of
Seattle Inc.; The Baseball Club Seattle LLLP; Baltimore Baseball Club Inc.;
24 Baltimore Orioles Inc.; Baltimore Orioles Limited Partnership; Padres, L.P.;
Pittsburgh Associates LP; Pittsburgh Baseball, Inc.; Tampa Bay Devil Rays Ltd.;
25 Rangers Baseball Express LLC; Boston Red Sox Baseball Club Limited
Partnership; Fenway Sports Group LLC; New England Sports Ventures, LLC; The
26 Cincinnati Reds, LLC; Colorado Baseball Partnership; Colorado Rockies Baseball
Club, Ltd.; Kansas City Royals Baseball Club, Inc.; Kansas City Royals Baseball
27 Corp.; Detroit Tigers, Inc.; Olympia Entertainment, Inc.; Minnesota Twins, LLC;
Chicago White Sox Ltd.; Chisox Corp.; New York Yankees Partnership; and
28 Yankee Global Enterprises LLC.
23
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 24 of 29 Page ID #:936

1 Angels of Anaheim, and San Diego Padres, as well as the Office of the
2 Commissioner and Commissioner Manfred.11
3 “To satisfy the Article III case or controversy requirement, a litigant must
4 have suffered some actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial
5 decision.” Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y. v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983). To
6 establish standing, a plaintiff must allege “(1) an injury that is (2) fairly traceable to
7 the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and that is (3) likely to be redressed by
8 the requested relief.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 590 (1992) (internal
9 quotation marks omitted). “[S]tanding is addressed on a claim by claim basis,” Get
10 Outdoors II, LLC v. City of San Diego, 506 F.3d 886, 893 (9th Cir. 2007), and “a
11 named plaintiff . . . must possess the requisite standing; it is not sufficient that a
12 putative class member may have standing to press one of the claims.” In re
13 Capacitors Antitrust Litig., 154 F. Supp. 3d 918, 925 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
14 Even in a class action, the traceability prong requires that the named
15 plaintiffs show a causal connection between their injuries and the actions of the
16 defendants they have chosen to sue. Easter v. Am. W. Fin., 381 F.3d 948, 961 (9th
17 Cir. 2004). “[I]n cases ‘where there are multiple defendants and multiple
18 claims, there must exist at least one named plaintiff with Article III standing as to
19 each defendant and each claim . . . .’” Golden Gate Transactional Indep. Serv., Inc.
20 v. California, No. CV 18- 08093 SJO (AGRx), 2019 WL 4222452, at *6 (C.D. Cal.
21 May 1, 2019) (quoting Reniger v. Hyundai Motor Amer., 122 F. Supp. 3d 888, 895
22 (N.D. Cal. 2015)). Thus, in Easter, the Ninth Circuit held that representatives of a
23 putative class of mortgagors lacked standing to sue trusts that did not hold any of
24 the named plaintiffs’ notes, notwithstanding that those trusts held the notes of other
25 individuals who the named plaintiffs hoped would eventually be part of a certified
26
27 11
The Los Angeles Dodgers, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, the San Diego
Padres, the Office of the Commissioner, and Commissioner Manfred do not
28 challenge the Court’s personal jurisdiction on the alleged facts.
24
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 25 of 29 Page ID #:937

1 class. Easter, 381 F.3d at 954-56, 961-62.


2 Here, no Plaintiff can trace his or her alleged injury to any club other than the
3 five whose tickets Plaintiffs allegedly purchased. Thus, because “hold[ing] each
4 defendant in the case” requires “at least one named plaintiff with standing to sue
5 said defendant,” In re Carrier IQ, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1051, 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2015),
6 claims against the 25 clubs from which no Plaintiff has alleged a direct purchase
7 must be dismissed. See Shahar v. Hotwire, Inc., No. C 12-06027 JSW, 2013 WL
8 12176843, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2013). As to those Defendants, the Court lacks
9 subject-matter jurisdiction.12
10 The same is true with respect to the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball
11 and Commissioner Manfred. As Plaintiffs concede, the question whether to issue
12 refunds for 2020 MLB games has been delegated to the individual clubs. See
13 FAC ¶¶ 3, 36, 79–81. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are therefore not fairly traceable to
14 the Office of the Commissioner or Commissioner Manfred. Nor can either of those
15 Defendants “redress[]” Plaintiffs’ claims, Lujan, 504 U.S. at 590, as neither
16 allegedly has Plaintiffs’ money. Again, by their own admission, Plaintiffs paid
17 either a club or a ticket merchant for tickets—not the Office of the Commissioner
18 or Commissioner Manfred. FAC ¶¶ 9–31. Plaintiffs therefore lack standing to
19 press their claims against either Defendant.
20 C. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Moot.
21 If the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ claims against the Out-of-State Clubs on
22 personal jurisdiction grounds and against the No-Purchase Defendants on standing
23 grounds, then it need not consider any other grounds for dismissal. Plaintiffs’
24 claims against all of the moving Baseball Defendants are subject to dismissal under
25
12
Although Plaintiffs Terry-Bazer and the Woolleys allege claims related to tickets
26 to Yankees and Brewers home games, respectively, they lack standing for claims
against those clubs. Their claims are based on tickets purchased through Ticket
27 Merchant Defendants (LN/TM and StubHub, respectively). By Plaintiffs’ own
allegations, their injuries are not fairly traceable to or redressed by the Yankees or
28 the Brewers. See FAC ¶¶ 11, 13, 18.
25
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 26 of 29 Page ID #:938

1 one or both of those arguments. However, Plaintiffs’ claims against the moving
2 Baseball Defendants fail for the separate additional reason that they have already
3 received the refunds they seek here.
4 Plaintiffs Woolley, Berger, Moyer, and Ajzenman are the only Plaintiffs who
5 allegedly purchased tickets directly from any of the moving Baseball Defendants:
6 the Cubs (Woolley and Berger), Phillies, and Mets, respectively. Thus, if these
7 Plaintiffs no longer have live disputes with the aforementioned clubs, there is no
8 case or controversy that would give rise to the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction
9 over Plaintiffs’ claims against them or any other moving Defendant. Here, the
10 Direct-Purchase Defendants’ full refunds to Plaintiffs Wooley, Berger and Moyer,
11 and Ajzenman’s decision to opt for a credit rather than an available full refund,
12 have extinguished whatever jurisdiction this Court had over their claims against the
13 moving Baseball Defendants.
14 “To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy
15 must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.”
16 Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (internal
17 quotation marks omitted). “If an intervening circumstance deprives the plaintiff of
18 a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit, at any point during litigation, the
19 action can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot.” Campbell-Ewald
20 Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 669 (2016), as revised (Feb. 9, 2016) (internal
21 quotation marks omitted). Thus, where a “Plaintiff has already received all of the
22 relief he seeks from the Court . . . his claim is moot and m[u]st be dismissed.” See,
23 e.g., Rudolph v. Cal. Two Bunch Return, LLC, No. CV-16-00886 AB (KKx), 2017
24 WL 7101147, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2017); Ostheimer v. Comm’r, No. Civ. 91-
25 102-M-CCL, 1995 WL 723224, at *3 (D. Mont. Sept. 18, 1995) (“Because
26 Plaintiffs have received the refunds requested by the complaint, their claims for
27 refund are now moot.”).
28
26
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 27 of 29 Page ID #:939

1 Even in the class-action context, “a lawsuit—or an individual claim—


2 becomes moot when a plaintiff actually receives all of the relief he or she could
3 receive on the claim through further litigation.” Chen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 F.3d
4 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Winebarger v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance
5 Agency, 411 F. Supp. 3d 1070, 1088 n.9 (C.D. Cal. 2019); Ballin v. Russ Bassett
6 Corp., No. 17-CV-3981 PSG, 2017 WL 10527368, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2017).
7 Moreover, when plaintiffs have actually received the relief that would make them
8 whole, a request for an injunction “in the abstract . . . apart from any concrete
9 application that threatens imminent harm to [their] interests,” does not keep their
10 claims alive. See Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 494 (2009); see also
11 Ballin, 2017 WL 10527368, at *10–11.
12 Plaintiffs’ central claim in this lawsuit is that they have been denied refunds
13 for their 2020 MLB tickets. See, e.g., FAC ¶ 1 (defining lawsuit as a class action
14 against MLB clubs “that refuse to refund money to MLB’s fans who purchased
15 tickets for the 2020 MLB season”). Pursuant to club policies for Impacted Games,
16 the only clubs at issue here from which Plaintiffs directly purchased tickets—the
17 Cubs, the Phillies, and the Mets—have provided full refunds or the option to
18 receive full refunds. Those claims are now moot. Specifically:13
19  Amanda and Jeremy Woolley received a full refund from the Cubs on
20 July 10, 2020. See Cubs Declaration ¶¶ 5-6.
21  Anne Berger received a full refund from the Cubs on July 10, 2020.
22 See Cubs Declaration ¶¶ 3-4.
23  Krystal Moyer received a full refund from the Phillies on June 25,
24 2020. See Phillies Declaration ¶¶ 3-4.
25
26
13
“Unlike a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a Rule 12(b)(1) motion can attack the substance
27 of a complaint’s jurisdictional allegations despite their formal sufficiency, and in so
doing rely on affidavits or any other evidence properly before the court.” St. Clair
28 v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir. 1989).
27
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 28 of 29 Page ID #:940

1  Matthew Ajzenman has the option to receive a full refund from the
2 Mets, but to date has not requested one. See Mets Declaration ¶¶ 3-6.
3 Ajzenman was automatically given a credit for 120 percent of ticket
4 value, which he can convert to a full refund upon request. Id.
5 That Plaintiffs style their claims for refunds as also seeking declaratory and
6 injunctive relief does not alter the conclusion that Plaintiffs no longer have a live
7 case or controversy for this Court to adjudicate. See Summers, 555 U.S. at 494;
8 Ballin, 2017 WL 10527368, at *4.
9 In meet-and-confer discussions with Plaintiffs’ counsel prior to the filing of
10 this motion, Defendants repeatedly raised the mootness of Plaintiffs’ claims and
11 asked for their voluntary dismissal. Two Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
12 claims on the eve of this filing. See ECF No. 75; ECF No. 76. Although remaining
13 Plaintiffs’ claims against the moving Baseball Defendants are indistinguishable on
14 mootness grounds from the voluntarily dismissed ones, see Dodgers Declaration
15 ¶¶ 3, 6; Indians Declaration ¶¶ 3-4, the remaining Plaintiffs have refused to dismiss
16 them, necessitating this motion. Plaintiffs Woolley, Berger, Moyer, and Ajzenman
17 should not be permitted to pursue wasteful litigation against the moving Baseball
18 Defendants seeking refunds they have already received.
19 IV. CONCLUSION
20 For the reasons stated above, the moving Baseball Defendants, listed in full
21 on Page 4, respectfully request that all claims pleaded against them be dismissed,
22 with prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction.
23 ////
24 ////
25 ////
26 ////
27
28
28
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638
Case 2:20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM Document 77 Filed 07/29/20 Page 29 of 29 Page ID #:941

1 Dated: July 29, 2020 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS


LLP
2
3 By: s/R. Adam Lauridsen
4 JOHN W. KEKER
R. ADAM LAURIDSEN
5 BENJAMIN D. ROTHSTEIN
BAILEY W. HEAPS
6 Attorneys for Defendants
7 OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL,
8 an unincorporated association doing
business as MAJOR LEAGUE
9 BASEBALL, et al.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case No. 2-20-cv-03643-DSF-JEM
1388638

También podría gustarte