Right Field Rooftops, LLC v. Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC
136 F. Supp. 3d 911
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Rooftops sues Cubs for anti-competitive conduct and breach of the License Agreement over view-blocking video board.
- Lawsuits group into antitrust (Counts I–II), false/defamatory representations and related claims (Counts III–VII), and breach of contract (Counts VIII–IX).
- Court previously denied TRO and preliminary injunction; now dismisses all counts with prejudice and returns to complaint stage to test sufficiency.
- Cubs allegedly blocked rooftop views, acquired rooftop properties, and sought minimum rooftop prices; Ricketts’ convention statement at issue in defamation/UDTPA/Lanham counts.
- License Agreement governs expansion of Wrigley Field; government approvals relevant; video board installation at issue.
- The decision rests on MLB antitrust exemption and contract interpretation, with alternative grounds for dismissal if exemption did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antitrust: MLB exemption applies to Rooftops’ claims? | Rooftops brachiate antitrust theories not undermined by exemption. | Exemption covers the business of baseball; Rooftops claim falls within. | Counts I–II dismissed under MLB antitrust exemption. |
| Alternative antitrust ground: plausible relevant market? | There are live Cubs game markets including Rooftop experiences. | No plausible relevant market; cannot monopolize Cubs’ product. | Counts I–II dismissed for lack of plausible market. |
| Can Cubs monopolize distribution of its own product? | Rooftops allege restraint of access to Cubs’ game presentation. | Cubs cannot monopolize its own product absent substitutes. | Counts I–II dismissed; no monopoly power over Cubs’ own product. |
| Defamation/UDTPA/Lanham: Ricketts’ statement is fact or opinion? | Statement is false factual claim; actionable. | Statement is opinion/metaphor; not verifiable fact. | Counts III–VII and IX dismissed as non-actionable opinion. |
| Breach of License Agreement: expansion clause scope? | Video board expansion falls within expansion prohibited absent consent. | Video board expansion approved by government; within 6.6. | Count VIII dismissed; expansion deemed permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fed. Baseball Club of Balt. v. Nat’l League of Prof’l Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1922) (antitrust exemption for baseball business)
- Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U.S. 356 (U.S. 1953) (baseball exemption persists; not within Sherman Act)
- Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1972) (Congressional acquiescence preserves exemption)
- Charles O. Finley & Co., Inc. v. Kuhn, 569 F.2d 527 (7th Cir. 1978) (exemption broader than single facet of baseball)
- City of San Jose v. Office of the Comm’r of Baseball, 776 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 2015) (exemption applies to baseball business generally)
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1992) (relevant market concept; locked-in substitutes example)
- PSKS, Inc. v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., 615 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2010) (market definition; product differentiation)
- Madison v. Frazier, 539 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2008) (defamation/false statements; framework for factual vs. opinion)
- Rosenthal Consulting Group, LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc., 2005 WL 3557947 (N.D. Ill. 2005) ( Lanham Act actionable specificity/verification standard)