Bourgeois v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
3 F. Supp. 3d 423
D. Maryland2014Background
- Bourgeois sued Live Nation, Monumental, Lyric for tickets sold in Baltimore with disputed service charges.
- Ticketmaster’s online ticket sales for Lyric events included service charges; part of charges remitted to Lyric under a Facility Agreement, which plaintiff calls a kickback.
- Maryland Court of Appeals reasons certified questions on the Baltimore ordinances; Bourgeois v. Live Nation Entm’t, 430 Md. 14, 59 A.3d 509 (2013) clarified the ordinances’ scope.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; court denied as to Count I (money had and received) but granted as to Counts II–XI; facts centered on Baltimore Licensing (Art. 15, §21) and Police (Art. 19, §55) ordinances.
- Court held the Ordinances apply to ticket sales occurring within Baltimore City only; internet sales’ geography is unsettled and requires factual development; laws do not authorize extraterritorial enforcement.
- The case proceeded on Count I and other claims, with the federal court applying Bourgeois guidance in evaluating statutory and constitutional limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the Baltimore ordinances apply extraterritorially to online ticket sales? | Ordinances apply to sales for Baltimore events; geographic reach should cover online sales tied to Baltimore. | Exhibitor provisions do not reach sales conducted outside Baltimore; internet is not a City location. | Yes and no: Ordinances apply to in-city sales; extraterritorial application barred. |
| Is Bourgeois’s money had and received claim barred by in pari delicto? | Plaintiff not in pari delicto since Ordinances protect ticket buyers. | Ordinances protect public interest, but parties were equally at fault. | Not barred; plaintiffs may pursue money had and received. |
| Does the voluntary payment doctrine bar recovery? | Plaintiff paid under a mistaken fact about remittances to Lyric; doctrine not applicable. | Voluntary payment doctrine bars recovery for fully voluntary payments. | Not applicable; doctrine does not bar Count I. |
| Do negligent misrepresentation and MCPA claims survive? | Defendants misrepresented service charges and undisclosed kickbacks. | No material misrepresentation or prohibited conduct proved; misrepresentation claims fail. | Counts II and III dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (heightened pleading standard; plausibility required)
- Bourgeois v. Live Nation Entm’t, Inc., 430 Md. 14 (Md. 2013) ( Maryland Court of Appeals on Baltimore ordinances and licensing regime)
- Holiday Universal, Inc. v. Montgomery Cnty., 377 Md. 305 (Md. 2003) (local-law versus general-law under Home Rule Amendment)
- Edwards Systems Tech. v. Corbin, 379 Md. 278 (Md. 2004) (constitutional avoidance; local-law reach; discretion in interpretation)
- Gaither v. Jackson, 147 Md. 655 (Md. 1925) (local vs general law; Home Rule implications)
- Tyma v. Montgomery County, 369 Md. 497 (Md. 2002) (local-law scope; employee benefits example)
- Mitchell Tracey v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 950 F. Supp. 2d 807 (D. Md. 2013) (example of misrepresentation and injury in title-insurance context)