Antitrust & Trade Regulation

Weekly Summaries Distributed January 16, 2015 City of San Jose v. Comm'r of Baseball Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Entertainment & Sports Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Abraham & Veneklasen Joint Venture v. American Quarter Horse Assoc. Animal / Dog Law, Antitrust & Trade Regulation  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from Justia

City of San Jose v. Comm'r of Baseball Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 14-15139 Opinion Date: January 15, 2015 Areas of Law: Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Entertainment & Sports Law This case arose when the Oakland Athletics wanted to move to the City of San Jose, but the City falls within the exclusive operating territory of the San Francisco Giants. The City, seeking approval of the move, filed suit against MLB, alleging violations of state and federal antitrust laws, of California's consumer protection statute, and of California tort law. The district court granted MLB's motion to dismiss on all but the tort claims and the City appealed. The City argues that the baseball industry's historic exemption from the antitrust laws does not apply to antitrust claims relating to franchise relocation. The court held, however, that antitrust claims against MLB's franchise relocation policies are precluded by Flood v. Kuhn, and, under Portland Baseball Club, Inc. v Kuhn, the court rejected any antitrust claim that was wholly unrelated to the reserve clause. Therefore, the City's claims under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 1-7 and 15 U.S.C. 12-27, must be dismissed. Further, the City's antitrust claims necessarily fall with its federal claims where the City can point to no case that has ever held that state antitrust claims continue to be viable after federal antitrust claims have been dismissed under the baseball exemption. An independent claim under California's unfair competition law is also barred so long as MLB's activities are lawful under the antitrust laws. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. http://j.st/4Qpm View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Abraham & Veneklasen Joint Venture v. American Quarter Horse Assoc. Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Docket: 13-11043 Opinion Date: January 14, 2015 Areas of Law: Animal / Dog Law, Antitrust & Trade Regulation Plaintiffs filed suit against AQHA, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and Texas antitrust law. Plaintiffs' allegations stemmed from votes by the Stud Book and Registration Committee of the AQHA, which had blocked AQHA registration of horses created through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT or cloning). On appeal, AQHA challenged the district court's denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). The court concluded that reasonable jurors could not draw any inference of conspiracy from the evidence presented, because it neither tends to exclude the possibility of independent action nor does it suggest the existence of any conspiracy at all. Therefore, the court concluded that the JMOL motion should have been granted in the absence of substantial evidence on the issue of an illegal conspiracy to restrain trade under Section 1 of the Act. Further, the Section 2 claim failed as a matter of law because AQHA is not a competitor in the allegedly relevant market for elite Quarter Horses. Accordingly, the court reversed and rendered judgment for AQHA. http://j.st/4QpT View Case On: Justia Google Scholar