in Re Houston Astros, LLC and Houston Astros Management, Inc.
14-20-00769-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- In 2019 a former Astros pitcher publicly alleged the Houston Astros used electronic sign‑stealing in 2017; MLB investigated and imposed sanctions.
- Plaintiffs are season (and partial‑season/postseason) ticket holders for 2016–2019 who sued the Astros contending they were deceived into buying tickets and related goods because the team misrepresented its integrity.
- Causes of action include fraud by nondisclosure, DTPA violations, money had and received, and unjust enrichment; plaintiffs seek refunds, treble/punitive damages, diminished PSL value, and fees.
- The Astros filed a Texas Rule 91a motion to dismiss, arguing the claims are not legally cognizable because they effectively challenge how the team played the games (on‑field conduct).
- The trial court denied the Rule 91a motion; the Astros petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus to vacate that denial and compel dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims based on alleged cheating during games are legally cognizable | Plaintiffs say claims are about off‑field deception that induced purchases, not on‑field results | Astros say claims are complaints about how the team played; such claims are not actionable | Dismissal required—claims based on how a team played are not legally cognizable |
| Whether marketing/representations about team integrity state independent off‑field misrepresentation claims | Representations (e.g., slogans) induced purchases and misled fans about the team’s integrity | Representations merely relate to on‑field conduct and cannot convert an on‑field injury into a legal claim | Court treats plaintiffs’ allegations as grounded in on‑field conduct and rejects the off‑field theory |
| Legal status of tickets and resulting remedy theory | Plaintiffs seek refunds and other monetary relief for purchased tickets and incidentals | Astros: tickets are revocable licenses; plaintiffs do not allege denial of entry or ejection | Ticket is a revocable license; absent denial of entry, no cognizable injury from the alleged cheating |
| Appropriateness of Rule 91a dismissal / mandamus relief | Plaintiffs contend factual issues preclude dismissal at pleading stage | Astros contend pleadings alone fail to state a legal basis for relief under Rule 91a | Appellate court grants conditional mandamus: trial court abused discretion; must set aside its order and grant Rule 91a dismissal for the asserted 2016–2019 claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2010) (ticket‑holder lacks legally protected right to an "honest" game; on‑field cheating claims not cognizable)
- City of Dallas v. Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. 2016) (Rule 91a review is limited to the pleading and is reviewed de novo)
- In re Farmers Tex. County Mut. Ins., 621 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. 2021) (Rule 91a: courts must decide motions solely on pleadings and allowed exhibits; mandamus appropriate for erroneous denials)
- Hegar v. Am. Multi‑Cinema, Inc., 605 S.W.3d 35 (Tex. 2020) (patron admission characterized as a revocable license)
- Antonio Le Mon v. Nat’l Football League, 277 So.3d 1166 (La. 2019) (ticket grants license to enter; fans lack class cause of action for alleged game fraud)
- Olson v. Major League Baseball, 447 F. Supp. 3d 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (background on MLB rules and the Astros sign‑stealing investigation)