SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) – The City of Oakland has appealed the dismissal of its lawsuit against the NFL over the relocation of the Raiders to Las Vegas.
Attorneys for Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker filed their notice of appeal May 29 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a month after a federal magistrate judge tossed Oakland’s case for lack of standing.
“Oakland still has not plausibly alleged what the playing field would look like if the NFL allowed more than thirty-two teams. In that hypothetical world, what would prevent Las Vegas from offering a more attractive deal, as in fact occurred? Would another team have already existed in Las Vegas?” Judge Joseph Spero wrote.
“Would the Raiders have gone elsewhere if Las Vegas already had a team? If the Raiders left, would a different team play in Oakland? The first amended complaint answers none of those questions.
“Oakland also once again declines to address what sort of league structure might be permissible if the current number of teams is not. Oakland’s injury remains speculative, and its claim remains subject to dismissal on that basis.”
Oakland filed suit against the NFL and its clubs alleging it was harmed through lost municipal investments, lost tax revenues, lost rental income and by the diminished value of the storied Coliseum, of which the city is a part owner.
The action turned on whether Oakland has any standing to make a claim and whether the city was damaged by the actions of the NFL.
“(The lawsuit’s) basic claim – that the NFL should be compelled to admit additional clubs because one of those clubs might play in Oakland or the Raiders might have had no choice but to stay there – remains flawed at every level," the NFL’s October motion to dismiss states.
"Oakland has failed to follow any of the steps laid out in this Court’s detailed roadmap of what allegations would be needed to survive a motion to dismiss."
The motion zeroed in on the antitrust claim that challenges the requirement that the NFL votes to admit new clubs.
"Oakland nowhere asserts that any new club has sought to join the NFL, much less that such a club wishes to play in Oakland," the motion states.
Also unsupported is the speculation that "some number of hypothetical new clubs might have played in Las Vegas and every market more attractive than Oakland, thereby foreclosing the Raiders’ move,” the NFL argued.
The motion noted that the district court has already found that "Oakland failed to sufficiently allege that defendants’ restraint on the supply of professional football teams resulted in any anti-competitive injury to Oakland."
In its December response to the motion, Oakland's attorneys stated that the league's arguments failed to even address the structure of the NFL and how it "uses its control over teams to constrain supply and drive hosting costs to supra-competitive levels."
Oakland was injured by this conduct, which the city, citing economists, claims amounts to “extortion," "sabotage" and "exploitation," the response states.
As a “closed” sports league, the NFL "artificially restricts the supply of teams to force cities to make a Hobson’s Choice: pay defendants’ anti-competitive price or lose your team."
The city argues "Defendants’ misconduct intentionally harmed a finite group of entities (Oakland, Alameda County and Las Vegas)....and Oakland is suing for damages directly caused to its proprietary interest as a host city."