Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC v. Dunican
1:24-cv-05086
N.D. Ill.Apr 14, 2025Background
- The Chicago Cubs sued Aidan Dunican and Rooftop by the Firehouse, Inc. (d/b/a Wrigley View Rooftop) regarding the use of Cubs trademarks after the expiration of a prior Settlement Agreement.
- Defendants previously sought dismissal of the case, which the court denied on January 7, 2025.
- Defendants then moved for reconsideration of the denial or, alternatively, to stay the case and compel arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the expired Settlement Agreement's arbitration clause.
- The central factual dispute concerned whether the actions (alleged improper trademark use) occurred after the Settlement Agreement expired and whether the arbitration provision survived expiration.
- The Settlement Agreement contained a survival clause but did not explicitly list the arbitration clause among provisions that survive expiration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reconsideration of Dismissal Denial | No manifest error in previous decision | Court misinterpreted procedural arguments | Motion to reconsider denied |
| Arbitration Applicability Post-Expiration | Conduct at issue occurred after Agreement expired | Dispute fits narrow exceptions for post-expiration | Dispute not subject to arbitration |
| Survival of Arbitration Clause | Arbitration clause not listed in survival provision | Survival is equitable for arbitration provision | No basis to compel arbitration after expiration |
| Authority to Decide Arbitrability | Agreement does not delegate arbitrability to AAA | AAA rules incorporated, so arbitrator decides | No clear delegation; court decides |
Key Cases Cited
- Caisse Nationale de Credit v. CBI Indus., 90 F.3d 1264 (7th Cir. 1996) (sets standard for motions to reconsider)
- Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185 (7th Cir. 1990) (describes limited use for motions to reconsider)
- Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. N.L.R.B., 502 U.S. 190 (1991) (defines arbitration scope for expired agreements)
- Kass v. PayPal Inc., 75 F.4th 693 (7th Cir. 2023) (parties cannot be forced to arbitrate non-agreed disputes)
- Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Watts Indus., Inc., 466 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2006) (standard for compelling arbitration)
- Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) (delegation of arbitrability issues to arbitrator)