Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
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
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
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
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
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
3 Picot v. Weston,
780 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 22
4
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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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
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