Right Field Rooftops, LLC v. Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16847
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rooftops (several rooftop businesses) operated near Wrigley Field selling paid views of Cubs games; they entered a License Agreement (2004) paying the Cubs 17% of gross revenues for unobstructed views; the Agreement expires 2023.
- Section 6 of the License Agreement addresses bleacher expansion and contains §6.6: "The Cubs shall not erect windscreens or other barriers… Any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this Agreement, including this section."
- Cubs acquired controlling interests in several rooftops after the Ricketts purchase (2009) and sought municipal approval for a major Wrigley Field renovation (bleachers, signs, video boards) beginning in 2012–2013; city authorities approved the project after hearings.
- Rooftops allege the Cubs used threats and acquisitions to force sales, attempted price-fixing, and constructed a video board that obstructed rooftop views; they sued (2015) asserting attempted monopolization (Sherman Act), breach of contract (including §6.6), and breach of a non‑disparagement provision based on Ricketts’ public remarks.
- The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice (Rule 12(b)(6)): antitrust claims barred by baseball exemption and failed market pleading; breach claim failed because §6.6’s government‑approval carve‑out permitted the video board; disparagement claim failed because Ricketts’ comments were nonactionable opinion. Motions to amend and for relief under Rule 59(e) were denied; Rooftops appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cubs’ conduct (acquisitions, threats, video board, price coordination) is subject to antitrust law or exempt as "business of baseball" | Rooftops: conduct targeted the market for watching Cubs games and constituted attempted monopolization; carve‑outs and non‑baseball events make exemption inapplicable | Cubs: baseball antitrust exemption applies to activities that are part of providing public baseball games; Curt Flood Act carve‑out limited to player‑employment matters | Held: Baseball exemption applies; antitrust claims dismissed. |
| Whether the video board breached §6.6 (prohibition on windscreens/ barriers vs. government‑approved expansion carve‑out) | Rooftops: §6 title and surrounding provisions show "expansion" = bleacher expansion; video board is an obstructing barrier and thus prohibited | Cubs: §6.6 unambiguously exempts any government‑approved expansion (broadly), so the video board—approved by city—does not violate the Agreement | Held: §6.6 plainly carves out government‑approved expansion; video board did not breach the License Agreement. |
| Whether Ricketts’ public statement at Cubs Convention violated the Agreement’s non‑disparagement clause (§8.2) | Rooftops: statement disparaged rooftops (abuse/insult) and breached the contract provision | Cubs: statement was rhetorical hyperbole/opinion, nonactionable and not an objectively false/misleading commercial assertion | Held: Statement was opinion/rhetorical hyperbole, not an untrue or misleading commercial disparagement; no breach. |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend antitrust claims (adding Northside, redefining market) | Rooftops: new public records and proposed amendments would cure defects and evade exemption; Northside is a separate defendant | Cubs: amendments would be futile because Northside is controlled by same actors and exemption would still apply; new evidence was publicly available | Held: Denial affirmed as amendment would be futile; baseball exemption still bars the antitrust claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922) (establishes the antitrust exemption for the business of giving baseball exhibitions)
- Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953) (reaffirms Federal Baseball exemption and leaves change to Congress)
- Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972) (recognizes congressional acquiescence to baseball exemption)
- Charles O. Finley & Co. v. Kuhn, 569 F.2d 527 (7th Cir. 1978) (discusses scope of the baseball exemption and that it applies to the business of baseball broadly)
- BeerMart, Inc. v. Stroh Brewery Co., 804 F.2d 409 (7th Cir. 1986) (interpretive rule that specific contract terms may control over general terms where they cannot stand together)
- Gallagher v. Lenart, 874 N.E.2d 43 (Ill. 2007) (Illinois contract‑interpretation principles: plain language, whole‑document reading)