Right Field Rooftops, LLC v. Chicago Baseball Holdings, LLC
87 F. Supp. 3d 874
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- In 2004 the Cubs and several rooftop businesses around Wrigley Field entered a License Agreement: rooftops pay 17% royalties for views into Wrigley Field through Dec. 31, 2023; §6 limits windscreens/barriers but provides that “any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation.”
- The Ricketts family bought the Cubs (2009) and later sought and obtained municipal approvals (Plan Commission, City Council, Commission on Chicago Landmarks) for outfield renovations including signs and video boards that would obstruct some rooftop views.
- Rooftop plaintiffs sued (Jan. 2015) alleging attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act and anticipatory breach of the License Agreement; they sought a TRO and preliminary injunction to halt installation of the right-field video board.
- The court held a TRO hearing (denied) and then ruled after briefing and argument that plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success on antitrust or contract claims and also failed to show irreparable harm or inadequate remedy at law.
- Key factual disputes acknowledged: Cubs purchased some rooftop properties, engaged in buyout negotiations, and proceeded with substantial construction (bleachers, signage); rooftop owners assert pressure to price-fix and threats to block uncooperative rooftops.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cubs' conduct violates Sherman Act (attempted monopolization) | Cubs coerced rooftops to fix prices, bought competitors, threatened blocking, and erected signs to eliminate rooftop competition | MLB (and team) activities are exempt from antitrust; plaintiffs cannot define a proper relevant market | Antitrust claims fail: MLB exemption applies; even without it plaintiffs failed to plead a plausible relevant market |
| Whether a relevant product/geographic market exists limited to "Live Cubs Games" or rooftops | Market is consumers who pay to watch live Cubs games (or live Cubs games from rooftops on Sheffield/Waveland) | Market is impermissibly narrow — single-brand product; substitutes (other teams/events/entertainment) exist | Plaintiffs cannot establish a single-brand market or market power; market definition implausible |
| Whether Cubs anticipatorily breached License Agreement by building video board | Video board will obstruct views and thus violates the contract’s promise not to erect barriers | §6.6 states any expansion approved by governmental authority is not a violation; video board is an "expansion" and was approved | No breach: court interprets “any expansion” (read in context) to include signs/windscreens; governmental approval immunizes the construction |
| Whether preliminary injunction warranted (irreparable harm & inadequate remedy) | Rooftops will be immediately insolvent, permanently put out of business, and thus suffer irreparable harm | Harm is monetary and remediable by damages; rooftops’ financial evidence is incomplete and speculative; Cubs invested in construction and sponsors would be harmed | Plaintiffs failed to show likely irreparable harm or inadequate remedy; balance of harms and delay by plaintiffs weigh against injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (baseball exemption from antitrust)
- Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (Congressional acquiescence supports baseball exemption)
- Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (continued recognition of baseball antitrust exemption)
- Charles O. Finley & Co. v. Kuhn, 569 F.2d 527 (7th Cir. 1978) (baseball exemption construed to cover business of baseball broadly)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunction; irreparable harm requirement)
- Mercatus Group, LLC v. Lake Forest Hosp., 641 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2011) (elements of attempted monopolization)
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992) (single-brand market and customer ‘lock-in’ analysis)