UPDATE: MLB relocating All-Star events from Georgia after voting bill approved

[PCSPounder]

I think I mentioned earlier about CJ Nitkowski's thoughts on this, and his first one was flat out MLB owed the people a detailed explanation. What it was in the legislation they did not like? All Manfred ever did was speak in generalities. Cite the specifics and how you disagree. To rip a $100 million impact from a market, to expect those people to continue consuming your product, deserves a bit more than the pabulum that was put out.

Especially when you look and see that you ripped it from a market made up of 51% of the people you are supposedly "standing up" for, to move it somewhere where it is 10%. From a business perspective, why would you even open yourself up to that kind of thing, especially when you have other leagues that show this type of move, hurts, and those who argue that they don't hurt the league, have never been able to prove it has helped?

It’s funny how people think most of the benefit of this is to the people making the least from the venture.

 

[LadyStanley]

Right-wing group sues for return of MLB All-Star game to Georgia, damages

The lawsuit against MLB and MLBPA seeks $1 billion in punitive damages.

Saga continues

 

[Bluto]

People still watch baseball?

 

[sh724]

Right-wing group sues for return of MLB All-Star game to Georgia, damages

The lawsuit against MLB and MLBPA seeks $1 billion in punitive damages.

Saga continues

I cannot see this suit going anywhere. For one the plaintiffs arent even based in Atlanta so the MLB will probably file to have it thrown out for lack of standing. Then there is the issue of the local businesses, who are the "injured" party in the suit didnt actually lose anything of real value. They lost potential value which is far from the same thing. The league didnt sign any sort of agreement with these businesses that the game would be played in ATL. If there was any sort of contractual agreement it would have only been between the league and whomever operates the field.

The league has an obvious 1st amendment defense in that by moving they were exercising their right to free speech. By moving the game the league and the PA were voicing their displeasure for the law by moving their business elsewhere. If someone wants to argue free speech doesnt apply to businesses, i will direct you to, the poorly title, Citizens United ruling.

Even if there was standing to sue and the case had merit (which it really doesnt) the courts would be very hesitant to rule in favor of the plaintiffs as it would open a massive can of worms. Just wait for businesses to sue a team because the team guaranteed they would make the POs that season then didnt. Garth Brooks gets sued bc his concert got rained out. This would open the door for an endless parade of frivolous law suits.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

People still watch baseball?

I watch baseball.

 

[nhlfan79]

I cannot see this suit going anywhere. For one the plaintiffs arent even based in Atlanta so the MLB will probably file to have it thrown out for lack of standing. Then there is the issue of the local businesses, who are the "injured" party in the suit didnt actually lose anything of real value. They lost potential value which is far from the same thing. The league didnt sign any sort of agreement with these businesses that the game would be played in ATL. If there was any sort of contractual agreement it would have only been between the league and whomever operates the field.

The league has an obvious 1st amendment defense in that by moving they were exercising their right to free speech. By moving the game the league and the PA were voicing their displeasure for the law by moving their business elsewhere. If someone wants to argue free speech doesnt apply to businesses, i will direct you to, the poorly title, Citizens United ruling.

Even if there was standing to sue and the case had merit (which it really doesnt) the courts would be very hesitant to rule in favor of the plaintiffs as it would open a massive can of worms. Just wait for businesses to sue a team because the team guaranteed they would make the POs that season then didnt. Garth Brooks gets sued bc his concert got rained out. This would open the door for an endless parade of frivolous law suits.

Lawyer here, and there's a lot of legal inaccuracies here. To clear all this up, first, you don't have to live in Atlanta to have legal standing. All you need to allege is (1) the existence of a legal dispute, (2) that the defendants proximately caused your claimed injuries, and (3) that such injuries can be redressed by the court. Nothing more. If these small business owners live elsewhere, but operate businesses directly affected by the game's relocation, they have legal standing. Second, there's no such thing as a "First Amendment" defense. The First Amendment simply prohibits the federal government from criminalizing speech. That's it. So many non-lawyers have no idea what the First Amendment does and does not do. It absolutely does not give you an unfettered right to break a legally binding contract. Imagine the complete anarchy if people were allowed to break legal agreements simply by claiming a First Amendment right to do so. Citizens United (holding that corporate political donations are protected speech) has absolutely zero to do with this situation. Go try that approach with your gym membership or your cable bill and see how far that gets you.

The real legal issue here is whether these small business owners have an enforceable contractual right against MLB. I seriously doubt that any had signed a direct contract with MLB regarding provision of services in connection with the ASG. Absent that, they have to establish something called "quasi-contract" theory, which in simple English means that they, as non-parties to the contract between the Atlanta Braves and MLB to host the game in Atlanta, reasonably relied to their financial detriment on MLB's obligation to the Braves to hold the game in Atlanta, as expected beneficiaries.

The merits of that point can be debated all day, but for the sake of focusing the discussion, that's the actual issue here. It's not about MLB's right to move the game without repercussions. That's simply false.

 

[Bjorn Le]

Lawyer here, and there's a lot of legal inaccuracies here. To clear all this up, first, you don't have to live in Atlanta to have legal standing. All you need to allege is (1) the existence of a legal dispute, (2) that the defendants proximately caused your claimed injuries, and (3) that such injuries can be redressed by the court. Nothing more. If these small business owners live elsewhere, but operate businesses directly affected by the game's relocation, they have legal standing. Second, there's no such thing as a "First Amendment" defense. The First Amendment simply prohibits the federal government from criminalizing speech. That's it. So many non-lawyers have no idea what the First Amendment does and does not do. It absolutely does not give you an unfettered right to break a legally binding contract. Imagine the complete anarchy if people were allowed to break legal agreements simply by claiming a First Amendment right to do so. Citizens United (holding that corporate political donations are protected speech) has absolutely zero to do with this situation. Go try that approach with your gym membership or your cable bill and see how far that gets you.

The real legal issue here is whether these small business owners have an enforceable contractual right against MLB. I seriously doubt that any had signed a direct contract with MLB regarding provision of services in connection with the ASG. Absent that, they have to establish something called "quasi-contract" theory, which in simple English means that they, as non-parties to the contract between the Atlanta Braves and MLB to host the game in Atlanta, reasonably relied to their financial detriment on MLB's obligation to the Braves to hold the game in Atlanta, as expected beneficiaries.

The merits of that point can be debated all day, but for the sake of focusing the discussion, that's the actual issue here. It's not about MLB's right to move the game without repercussions. That's simply false.

You should read the actual complaint, as it’s quite premature to say the sole legal issue here is a contractural right (and to seem to suggest the claim could have merit). The “complaint”; in air quotes because it is so bad it does not deserve to be called a complaint, alleges several grounds and their contractual claims (tortious interference with contract and promissory estoppel) clearly have no merit.

There’s a reason no one is taking this seriously, “this is the dumbest complaint I have ever read”, “if this was turned in as a law school exam, you would have given it an F and counseled the student to find a different line of work.”

Pro-business group files lawsuit against MLB for pulling All-Star Game from Atlanta

 

[nhlfan79]

You should read the actual complaint, as it’s quite premature to say the sole legal issue here is a contractural right (and to seem to suggest the claim could have merit). The “complaint”; in air quotes because it is so bad it does not deserve to be called a complaint, alleges several grounds and their contractual claims (tortious interference with contract and promissory estoppel) clearly have no merit.

There’s a reason no one is taking this seriously, “this is the dumbest complaint I have ever read”, “if this was turned in as a law school exam, you would have given it an F and counseled the student to find a different line of work.”

Pro-business group files lawsuit against MLB for pulling All-Star Game from Atlanta

I'm not suggesting anything about the suit's relative merits, which I have no personal opinion about. In fact, I clearly said that the merits could be debated all day. I only was making the factual points that legal standing probably exists and that MLB doesn't have a "First Amendment defense." This very well may be a meritless lawsuit, but its disposition will be based on contract law principles, not MLB's First Amendment rights.

Did you read the actual complaint yourself, or just Google a news story where random people commented on it?

 

[Bjorn Le]

I'm not suggesting anything about the suit's relative merits, which I have no personal opinion about. In fact, I clearly said that the merits could be debated all day. I only was making the factual points that legal standing probably exists and that MLB doesn't have a "First Amendment defense." This very well may be a meritless lawsuit, but its disposition will be based on contract law principles, not MLB's First Amendment rights.

Did you read the actual complaint yourself, or just Google a news story where random people commented on it?

You aren’t making factual points, you guessed what legal issue it would be decided on without even reading the complaint, while giving a BS sidestep “I won’t comment on the merits”, a position that effectively condones the lawsuit when every legal observer has laughed at its merits.

It’s a huge pet peeve of mine when lawyers make arrogant comments that assert some false air of superiority, especially when their comments are wrong! The lead claims allege absolutely bonkers violations of legislation like the Klu Klux Klan Act, and the only true contractual claim made, promissory estoppel, (because tortious interference with contract does not claim any contract between MLB and the small business owners, only that MLB interferes with the 3P contracts), is ridiculous on its face because it asserts that MLB “promised” all 3P business owners the game would be in Atlanta. A ridiculous assertion the courts would never agree with.

So yes, read the complaint before you try to pull the “I’m a lawyer I’m better than you” card.

 

[nhlfan79]

Wow, just wow. "Arrogant"? "False air of superiority"? "'I'm better than you' card"? Way to turn this personal somehow.

I'm done here.

 

[LadyStanley]

MLB calls All-Star Game lawsuit from right-wing group 'political theatrics'

A right-wing advocacy group filed a lawsuit against MLB last week over its decision to move the All-Star Game to Denver.


"Political theatrics "

 

[LadyStanley]

Judge rejects conservative attempt to force MLB to move All-Star Game back to Atlanta

"Weak and muddled is an understatement," the judge said about the lawsuit's arguments.


Judge denied injunction to return to Georgia

 

[PCSPounder]

This is the first tweet of a hilarious thread from someone who live-tweeted the proceedings that took place today. It’s worth a read.

 

[sh724]

Lawyer here, and there's a lot of legal inaccuracies here. To clear all this up, first, you don't have to live in Atlanta to have legal standing. All you need to allege is (1) the existence of a legal dispute, (2) that the defendants proximately caused your claimed injuries, and (3) that such injuries can be redressed by the court. Nothing more. If these small business owners live elsewhere, but operate businesses directly affected by the game's relocation, they have legal standing. Second, there's no such thing as a "First Amendment" defense. The First Amendment simply prohibits the federal government from criminalizing speech. That's it. So many non-lawyers have no idea what the First Amendment does and does not do. It absolutely does not give you an unfettered right to break a legally binding contract. Imagine the complete anarchy if people were allowed to break legal agreements simply by claiming a First Amendment right to do so. Citizens United (holding that corporate political donations are protected speech) has absolutely zero to do with this situation. Go try that approach with your gym membership or your cable bill and see how far that gets you.

The real legal issue here is whether these small business owners have an enforceable contractual right against MLB. I seriously doubt that any had signed a direct contract with MLB regarding provision of services in connection with the ASG. Absent that, they have to establish something called "quasi-contract" theory, which in simple English means that they, as non-parties to the contract between the Atlanta Braves and MLB to host the game in Atlanta, reasonably relied to their financial detriment on MLB's obligation to the Braves to hold the game in Atlanta, as expected beneficiaries.

The merits of that point can be debated all day, but for the sake of focusing the discussion, that's the actual issue here. It's not about MLB's right to move the game without repercussions. That's simply false.

The Judge questioned JCN lacking standing.

The Judge said companies (MLB) have first amendment rights to disagree with policy and move their business. This was something the MLB lawyers were going to bring up if need be, but the judge brought it up and made the arguement for MLB.

I never said the 1st amendment allowed people to break contracts, so not sure what point you are trying to make there. I explicitly said the "injured party" did not have any contractual agreement with MLB. Gym memberships and cable companies have legally enforceable contracts in place. As I previously said there is no contract between the league and the "injured party".

 

[daver]

Wow, just wow. "Arrogant"? "False air of superiority"? "'I'm better than you' card"? Way to turn this personal somehow.

I'm done here.

FWIW, I found your original post to be interesting and objective and cannot fathom why you got this blowback other than you didn't voice the "right" position.

It's tough trying to be an objective and reasonable voice these days, eh?

 

[nhlfan79]

The Judge questioned JCN lacking standing.

The Judge said companies (MLB) have first amendment rights to disagree with policy and move their business. This was something the MLB lawyers were going to bring up if need be, but the judge brought it up and made the arguement for MLB.

I never said the 1st amendment allowed people to break contracts, so not sure what point you are trying to make there. I explicitly said the "injured party" did not have any contractual agreement with MLB. Gym memberships and cable companies have legally enforceable contracts in place. As I previously said there is no contract between the league and the "injured party".

Please reread my second quoted paragraph. We don't disagree.

 

[daver]

MLB calls All-Star Game lawsuit from right-wing group 'political theatrics'

A right-wing advocacy group filed a lawsuit against MLB last week over its decision to move the All-Star Game to Denver.


"Political theatrics "

I am presuming you are pointing out the irony of MLB calling the lawsuit "political theatrics" given that is exactly how their move to Denver can be labeled.

 

[Bjorn Le]

FWIW, I found your original post to be interesting and objective and cannot fathom why you got this blowback other than you didn't voice the "right" position.

It's tough trying to be an objective and reasonable voice these days, eh?

It was legally incorrect. That’s why he got blowback.

 

[nhlfan79]

It was legally incorrect. That’s why he got blowback.

Please tell me where I was legally incorrect. Once again, I have literally zero interest in how this case turns out. I don't favor one side or the other. I'm just objectively explaining the law for the sake of the discussion.

 

[daver]

It was legally incorrect. That’s why he got blowback.

Being legally incorrect =/= personal attacks. I didn't see where the poster was implying anything than their impression of the situation in a clearly objective manner (i.e. no idea if they what, if any, their political leaning may be).

Isn't up the a judge and jury to determine what is legally incorrect or not?

 

[Bjorn Le]

Please tell me where I was legally incorrect. Once again, I have literally zero interest in how this case turns out. I don't favor one side or the other. I'm just objectively explaining the law for the sake of the discussion.

I already told you; you incorrectly proclaimed what the legal issue in the lawsuit was. As I already said in two different posts, there are many different claims in the complaint, only two of which refer to contract. The first was tortious interference with contract, which is a tort claim, not contract. And the second is promissory estoppel, which yes, is a contractual claim, but not exactly as you formulated it, and almost certainly not applicable to third parties who have no relationship with MLB (because MLB did not promise 3P small businesses anything, directly or indirectly). Even if you had got the promissory estoppel issue right, it is but one claim made by JCN and not "the real legal issue" that this lawsuit would be decided on. There are several legal issues, only one of them is contract, and the contractual claim is one of the weakest of an already very weak set of claims.

This is among other mistakes like suggesting standing wasn't an issue and dismissing a constitutional argument prematurely. You weren't objectively explaining the law, you provided a misleading analysis at best and an outright incorrect one at worst. You could have prevented this by reading the complaint or, at the bare minimum, educating yourself on what informed commentators had already said.

 

[nhlfan79]

Did you even read my original post? I set out the three-part test for standing and was responding to another's person's prior comment that no standing existed because the plaintiffs weren't even in Georgia. All I tried to do was explain, in a neutral and detached way, how that was not how standing works. I never advocated the plaintiffs' position in any way.

And, yes, tortious interference with a contract is a tort claim, but to prove it, you first have to establish the existence of a contract in the first place. Self-evident.

I don't need to read what "informed commentators" have to say. This literally is my day job. But to get to the heart of it, why can't you and others here get that I don't give a single flip about who wins this case? I have zero emotional or personal interest in it. I don't know why you're trying so hard to convince me that the plaintiffs are full of crap. I. Don't. Care.

 

[Bjorn Le]

Did you even read my original post? I set out the three-part test for standing and was responding to another's person's prior comment that no standing existed because the plaintiffs weren't even in Georgia. All I tried to do was explain, in a neutral and detached way, how that was not how standing works. I never advocated the plaintiffs' position in any way.

And, yes, tortious interference with a contract is a tort claim, but to prove it, you first have to establish the existence of a contract in the first place. Self-evident.

I don't need to read what "informed commentators" have to say. This literally is my day job. But to get to the heart of it, why can't you and others here get that I don't give a single flip about who wins this case? I have zero emotional or personal interest in it. I don't know why you're trying so hard to convince me that the plaintiffs are full of crap. I. Don't. Care.

This is revisionist history, and a transparent attempt for you to backpedal from your misleading if not outright incorrect legal analysis. You replied to a post that said standing would be an issue. You wrote, quote, "there's a lot of legal inaccuracies here." But now after the Court clearly said standing was an issue, you want to pretend you were just describing standing instead of standing by what was clearly your intention to say that standing was not an issue in this case.

Tortious interference with contract is interference by the respondent with a contract between JCN and a 3P. Not between JCN and MLB. Not between a 3P and MLB. It's completely different from the "real legal issue" you surmised was the only legal issue in the case.

You clearly do need to do more research because your issue spotting is sorely lacking. Don't care what your "day job" is, occupation is not an excuse for failing to properly inform yourself of the necessary information required to give an opinion on this topic.

Maybe if you didn't come into this topic saying that you're a lawyer and proclaiming that another poster was making "legal inaccuracies" (when you then proceed to promulgate several yourself), I would give you the benefit of the doubt. But when you assert expertise and then get it wrong, I'm going to hold you to your word. I don't care about what your intentions now are.

 

[nhlfan79]

This is revisionist history, and a transparent attempt for you to backpedal from your misleading if not outright incorrect legal analysis. You replied to a post that said standing would be an issue. You wrote, quote, "there's a lot of legal inaccuracies here." But now after the Court clearly said standing was an issue, you want to pretend you were just describing standing instead of standing by what was clearly your intention to say that standing was not an issue in this case.

Tortious interference with contract is interference by the respondent with a contract between JCN and a 3P. Not between JCN and MLB. Not between a 3P and MLB. It's completely different from the "real legal issue" you surmised was the only legal issue in the case.

You clearly do need to do more research because your issue spotting is sorely lacking. Don't care what your "day job" is, occupation is not an excuse for failing to properly inform yourself of the necessary information required to give an opinion on this topic.

Maybe if you didn't come into this topic saying that you're a lawyer and proclaiming that another poster was making "legal inaccuracies" (when you then proceed to promulgate several yourself), I would give you the benefit of the doubt. But when you assert expertise and then get it wrong, I'm going to hold you to your word. I don't care about what your intentions now are.

FFS, it's not revisionist history when the entire exchange above is still there and can be read in full, and in context, by anyone. Once again, the "legal inaccuracies" I initially responded to were two very specific things, and only those two things: (1) the original commenter's general misunderstanding of how the legal concept of standing works based on his/her mistaken assumption that the legal domicile of these plaintiffs mattered; and (2) his/her mistaken belief that Citizens United had any applicability in this situation. Nothing more, period, full stop.

I don't need your sanctimonious legal lecture in the quoted post above, as it was you, not me, that expanded the discussion to bring up alternative tort theories, a point I had never spoken to. (Since I know you won't let it rest, a true tortious interference claim in this context would have to be based on MLB's allegedly tortious act of withdrawing the game from Atlanta, thereby harming an existing contract between the plaintiffs and the Braves. In that scenario, MLB itself is the harming third party. To beat a dead horse even more, I don't know whether such a contract exists, but I highly doubt it. But either way, I don't care.).

And nowhere did I ever say that equitable principles were the "only legal issue" in the case. I said the "real legal issue," meaning--in common English--that's the heart of the dispute. Everything else will probably rise or fall based on the relative strength of that central claim. Regardless, it's an internet bulletin board post, not a legal brief. I was distilling a couple of key points concisely for the hopeful benefit of non-lawyers here. If you expected me (or anyone) to get into the nuances of Rule 12(b)(6) and federal court civil practice and procedure, as applied to every single legal theory promulgated in ths lawsuit, this isn't really the venue for that.

All of this is so plainly apparent that I can't tell whether you're sincere in your continuing comments, or whether you're just trolling for the sake of trolling and entertainment. If you disagree with my insight, I don't care in the slightest. You do you.

 

[Bjorn Le]

FFS, it's not revisionist history when the entire exchange above is still there and can be read in full, and in context, by anyone. Once again, the "legal inaccuracies" I initially responded to were two very specific things, and only those two things: (1) the original commenter's general misunderstanding of how the legal concept of standing works based on his/her mistaken assumption that the legal domicile of these plaintiffs mattered; and (2) his/her mistaken belief that Citizens United had any applicability in this situation. Nothing more, period, full stop.

Correct, everyone can see your post, but the only thing that has changed is that now that the first decision has been rendered, you're trying to walk back what you meant. If you thought that standing or the 1st Amendment was relevant at the time you made that post, you would have said so. You explicitly did not.

Instead, you:

• Wrote the other post had "lots of legal inaccuracies."
• Argued that if small businesses owners were affected by the decision, they had standing.
• Directly implied the 1st Amendment was not relevant.
• Argued the "real legal issue" was your since debunked contractual claim.

It is fine if you've changed you mind since the initial court decision, but let's not pretend you meant something you very clearly did not.

I don't need your sanctimonious legal lecture in the quoted post above, as it was you, not me, that expanded the discussion to bring up alternative tort theories, a point I had never spoken to. (Since I know you won't let it rest, a true tortious interference claim in this context would have to be based on MLB's allegedly tortious act of withdrawing the game from Atlanta, thereby harming an existing contract between the plaintiffs and the Braves. In that scenario, MLB itself is the harming third party. To beat a dead horse even more, I don't know whether such a contract exists, but I highly doubt it. But either way, I don't care.).

Clearly you do, given that you still don't seem to understand tortious interference with contract, and you still haven't read the complaint given you once again got the claim wrong. That is not the true tort claim here. JCN's claim alleges that MLB interfered with contracts between JCN, or more accurately, the small and medium-sized businesses that JCN represents, and other third parties (but explicitly not the Braves). Even if JCN was referring to a contract with the Braves, that would be no more "true" a claim than this one.

And for the record, the tort claim was raised to show to you that (1) you haven't read the complaint; and (2) you have no grounds to say what the "real legal issue" of the case will be when you don't have an accurate grasp of the legal issues at play in the complaint.

And nowhere did I ever say that equitable principles were the "only legal issue" in the case. I said the "real legal issue," meaning--in common English--that's the heart of the dispute. Everything else will probably rise or fall based on the relative strength of that central claim. Regardless, it's an internet bulletin board post, not a legal brief. I was distilling a couple of key points concisely for the hopeful benefit of non-lawyers here. If you expected me (or anyone) to get into the nuances of Rule 12(b)(6) and federal court civil practice and procedure, as applied to every single legal theory promulgated in ths lawsuit, this isn't really the venue for that.

Let's not play this semantic game. Even if we are to accept your definition of what "real legal issue" means (and to be clear, I do not), you are still wrong. A quasi-contractual claim (more accurately, promissory estoppel) is not "the heart of this dispute", it is not the central claim of the complaint. Rather, it is one of several in a hodgepodge of claims upset with the decision to retract Atlanta's hosting of the All-Star Game.

The real heart of the dispute is much broader: that is was allegedly unlawful for MLB to move the All-Star Game. Certainly much broader than a contractual claim that for reasons I have already stated, you did not describe accurately.

All of this is so plainly apparent that I can't tell whether you're sincere in your continuing comments, or whether you're just trolling for the sake of trolling and entertainment. If you disagree with my insight, I don't care in the slightest. You do you.

It's not disagreement. You asserted expertise in the subject area, and then got your analysis wrong. I am forcefully dismantling your analysis because you asserted this expertise. Don't be upset, be more informed next time.