throbber
Case 3:18-cv-07444-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 49
`
`
`
`BARBARA J. PARKER (Bar No. 69722)
` bparker@oaklandcityattorney.org
`OTIS McGEE JR. (Bar No. 71885)
` omcgeejr@oaklandcityattorney.org
`MARIA BEE (Bar No. 167716)
` mbee@oaklandcityattorney.org
`ERIN BERNSTEIN (Bar No. 231539)
` ebernstein@oaklandcityattorney.org
`OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY
`One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor
`Oakland, California 94612
`Telephone: (510) 238-3601
`Facsimile: (510) 238-6500
`
`CLIFFORD H. PEARSON (Bar No. 108523)
` cpearson@pswlaw.com
`DANIEL L. WARSHAW (Bar No. 185365)
` dwarsshaw@pswlaw.com
`MICHAEL H. PEARSON (Bar No. 277857)
` mpearson@pswlaw.com
`MATTHEW A. PEARSON (Bar No. 291484)
` mapearson@pswlaw.com
`PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
`15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
`Sherman Oaks, California 91403
`Telephone: (818) 788-8300
`Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
`
`[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff City of Oakland
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAMES W. QUINN
` jquinn@bafirm.com
`DAVID BERG
` dberg@bafirm.com
`MICHAEL M. FAY
` mfay@bafirm.com
`JENNY H. KIM
` jkim@bafirm.com
`CHRISTOPHER L. SPRENGLE
` csprengle@bafirm.com
`BRONWYN M. JAMES
` bjames@bafirm.com
`BERG & ANDROPHY
`120 West 45th Street, 38th Floor
`New York, New York 10036
`Telephone: (646) 766-0073
`Facsimile: (646) 219-1977
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`
` CASE NO.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CITY OF OAKLAND,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`THE OAKLAND RAIDERS, A
`CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
`ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB
`LLC; ATLANTA FALCONS FOOTBALL
`CLUB, LLC; BALTIMORE RAVENS
`LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; BUFFALO
`BILLS, LLC; PANTHERS FOOTBALL,
`LLC; THE CHICAGO BEARS FOOTBALL
`CLUB, INC.; CINCINNATI BENGALS,
`INC.; CLEVELAND BROWNS FOOTBALL
`COMPANY LLC; DALLAS COWBOYS
`
`899062.9
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-07444-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 2 of 49
`
`
`
`FOOTBALL CLUB, LTD.; PDB SPORTS,
`LTD.; THE DETROIT LIONS, INC.; GREEN
`BAY PACKERS, INC.; HOUSTON NFL
`HOLDINGS, LP; INDIANAPOLIS COLTS,
`INC.; JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS, LLC;
`KANSAS CITY CHIEFS FOOTBALL
`CLUB, INC.; CHARGERS FOOTBALL
`COMPANY, LLC; THE RAMS FOOTBALL
`COMPANY, LLC; MIAMI DOLPHINS,
`LTD.; MINNESOTA VIKINGS FOOTBALL,
`LLC; NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS LLC;
`NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA SAINTS,
`LLC; NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS,
`INC.; NEW YORK JETS LLC;
`PHILADELPHIA EAGLES, LLC;
`PITTSBURGH STEELERS LLC; FORTY
`NINERS FOOTBALL COMPANY LLC;
`FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC;
`BUCCANEERS TEAM LLC; TENNESSEE
`FOOTBALL, INC; PRO-FOOTBALL, INC.;
`and THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL
`LEAGUE,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`899062.9
`
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`Case 3:18-cv-07444-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 3 of 49
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................................... 2 
`
`PARTIES ............................................................................................................................... 8 
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE .......................................................................................... 11 
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT .................................................................................... 11 
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS .............................................................................................. 11 
`
`A. 
`
`Background ............................................................................................................. 11 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`The NFL’s Complete Market Power Over NFL Franchise Locations ........ 11 
`
`The NFL’s Relocation Process .................................................................... 14 
`
`(a) 
`
`(b) 
`
`The Relocation Policies ................................................................... 14 
`
`The Relocation Fee .......................................................................... 16 
`
`3. 
`
`The Raider’s History In Oakland ................................................................ 17 
`
`(a) 
`
`The Raiders’ Identity Is Inextricably Linked With Its
`Oakland Fans ................................................................................... 17 
`
`(b) 
`
`The Hectic Al Davis Years .............................................................. 17 
`
`B. 
`
`The Raiders’ Unlawful Relocation From Oakland ................................................. 20 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`The Raiders And NFL Decide To Leave Oakland ...................................... 20 
`
`The Raiders’ Pretextual And Bad Faith Negotiations With Oakland ......... 21 
`
`Defendants’ Collusive Relocation Fee Determination And
`Relocation Vote ........................................................................................... 24 
`
`The Unlawful Conspiracy Behind The Raiders’ Relocation ................................... 28 
`
`The Relevant Market Applicable To Defendants’ Misconduct............................... 30 
`
`Defendants’ Conduct Has Injured Competition ...................................................... 31 
`
`Defendants’ Anticompetitive Conduct Has Injured Plaintiff .................................. 32 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`VI. 
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION ....................................................................................................... 32 
`
`COUNT I: Violation of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) Group Boycott:
`Damages/Disgorgement .......................................................................................... 32 
`
`COUNT II: Violation of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) Refusal to Deal:
`Damages/Disgorgement .......................................................................................... 34 
`
`899062.9
`
`
`
`i
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-07444-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 4 of 49
`
`
`
`COUNT III: Violation of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) Price Fixing:
`Damages/Disgorgement .......................................................................................... 36 
`
`COUNT IV: Violation of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) Declaratory Judgment .......... 37 
`
`COUNT V: Breach of Contract (Cal. Civ. Code § 1559) Damages .................................. 39 
`
`COUNT VI: Quantum Meruit Restitution ......................................................................... 41 
`
`COUNT VII: Unjust Enrichment Under California Law Damages/Disgorgement ........... 43 
`
`VII. 
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF ...................................................................................................... 44 
`
`VIII.  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ........................................................................................... 45 
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`899062.9
`
`
`
`ii
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-07444-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 5 of 49
`
`
`
`Plaintiff City of Oakland (“Oakland” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its attorneys, the
`
`Offices of the Oakland City Attorney; Berg & Androphy; and Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP,
`
`as and for its complaint against Defendants The Oakland Raiders, a California Limited
`
`Partnership, d/b/a Oakland Raiders (“Raiders”); Arizona Cardinals Football Club LLC, d/b/a
`
`Arizona Cardinals (“Cardinals”); Atlanta Falcons Football Club, LLC, d/b/a Atlanta Falcons
`
`(“Falcons”); Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership, d/b/a Baltimore Ravens (“Ravens”); Buffalo
`
`Bills, LLC, d/b/a Buffalo Bills (“Bills”); Panthers Football, LLC, d/b/a Carolina Panthers
`
`(“Panthers”); The Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc., d/b/a Chicago Bears (“Bears”); Cincinnati
`
`Bengals, Inc., d/b/a Cincinnati Bengals (“Bengals”); Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC,
`
`d/b/a Cleveland Browns (“Browns”); Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd., d/b/a Dallas Cowboys
`
`(“Cowboys”); PDB Sports, Ltd., d/b/a Denver Broncos (“Broncos”); The Detroit Lions, Inc., d/b/a
`
`Detroit Lions (“Lions”); Green Bay Packers, Inc., d/b/a Green Bay Packers (“Packers”); Houston
`
`NFL Holdings, LP, d/b/a Houston Texans (“Texans”); Indianapolis Colts, Inc., d/b/a Indianapolis
`
`Colts (“Colts”); Jacksonville Jaguars, LLC, d/b/a Jacksonville Jaguars (“Jaguars”); Kansas City
`
`Chiefs Football Club, Inc., d/b/a Kansas City Chiefs (“Chiefs”); Chargers Football Company,
`
`LLC, d/b/a Los Angeles Chargers (“Chargers”); The Rams Football Company, LLC, d/b/a Los
`
`Angeles Rams (“Rams”); Miami Dolphins, Ltd., d/b/a Miami Dolphins (“Dolphins”); Minnesota
`
`Vikings Football, LLC, d/b/a Minnesota Vikings (“Vikings”); New England Patriots LLC, d/b/a
`
`New England Patriots (“Patriots”); New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC, d/b/a New Orleans Saints
`
`(“Saints”); New York Football Giants, Inc., d/b/a New York Giants (“Giants”); New York Jets,
`
`LLC, d/b/a New York Jets (“Jets”); Philadelphia Eagles, LLC, d/b/a Philadelphia Eagles
`
`(“Eagles”); Pittsburgh Steelers, LLC, d/b/a Pittsburgh Steelers (“Steelers”); Forty Niners Football
`
`Company LLC, d/b/a San Francisco 49ers (“49ers”); Football Northwest LLC, d/b/a Seattle
`
`Seahawks (“Seahawks”); Buccaneers Team LLC, d/b/a Tampa Bay Buccaneers (“Buccaneers”);
`
`Tennessee Football, Inc., d/b/a Tennessee Titans (“Titans”); and Pro-Football, Inc., d/b/a
`
`Washington Redskins (“Redskins,” and with the Raiders, Cardinals, Falcons, Ravens, Bills,
`
`Panthers, Bears, Bengals, Browns, Cowboys, Broncos, Lions, Packers, Texans, Colts, Jaguars,
`
`Chiefs, Chargers, Rams, Dolphins, Vikings, Patriots, Saints, Giants, Jets, Eagles, Steelers, 49ers,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`899062.9
`
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-07444-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 6 of 49
`
`
`
`Seahawks, Buccaneers and Titans, the “NFL Clubs”); and The National Football League (“NFL,”
`
`and with the NFL Clubs, the “Defendants”), allege as follows:
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`1.
`
`This is an action for damages and other relief arising out of the Defendants’
`
`unlawful decision to boycott Oakland, as the host city of the Raiders, and relocate the Raiders to
`
`Las Vegas, Nevada.
`2.
`
`In 2017, the Raiders announced that they were leaving Oakland for Las Vegas.
`
`Although Oakland went to extraordinary efforts to keep the Raiders from leaving, the ultimate
`
`calculation was purely monetary: Las Vegas offered $750 million, ostensibly for a new stadium,
`
`and the Raiders are paying $378 million to the NFL Clubs for voting “yes” on the Las Vegas
`
`relocation. This $378 million “relocation fee” served no legitimate purpose and, instead, skewed
`
`the bidding process for the Raiders in favor of relocation by enriching the NFL Clubs for their
`
`positive votes for the Raiders’ move. While Oakland proposed a $1.3 billion new stadium that
`
`included a mix of public and private funding to the tune of $750 million, Oakland’s offer did not,
`
`and could not, put tens of millions of additional dollars in additional supra-competitive cartel
`
`payments in the form of a relocation fee directly into the pockets of each of the remaining 31 NFL
`
`Club owners. Only relocating the Raiders did.
`3.
`
`The Raiders’ move – and the bidding process which preceded it – violated not only
`
`the antitrust laws, but also the NFL’s own relocation policies. More than 35 years ago, the United
`
`States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that Article 4.3 of the NFL Constitution and
`
`Bylaws (“NFL Constitution,” attached hereto in its entirety as Exhibit “1”) – which requires three-
`
`fourths approval of all NFL Clubs for team relocations – amounted to an unreasonable restraint of
`
`trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because no objective standards or durational
`
`limits were incorporated into the voting requirements. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n
`
`v. National Football League, 726 F.2d 1381 (9th Cir. 1984). The Ninth Circuit found that, while
`
`some collective restraints may be necessary to producing a successful NFL product, such restraints
`
`must be closely tailored to advancing that purpose in order to withstand antitrust scrutiny. The
`
`court enumerated objective considerations – then lacking in Article 4.3 – such as population,
`
`899062.9
`
`
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-07444-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 7 of 49
`
`
`
`economic projections, facilities, regional balance, fan loyalty, and team rivalries, among others,
`
`that should guide Defendants’ territorial allocations of NFL teams in order to mitigate their
`
`collective actions under the rule of reason. In response to the Ninth Circuit’s antitrust ruling
`
`against it, and to ensure future relocation decisions withstand antitrust scrutiny, the NFL
`
`subsequently adopted the Policy and Procedures for Proposed Franchise Relocations (the
`
`“Relocation Policies” or “Policies,” attached hereto as Exhibit “2”) that ostensibly incorporate the
`
`At the outset, the Relocation Policies expressly confirm that:
`
`objective criteria that the Ninth Circuit ruled were lacking.
`4.
`each club’s primary obligation to the League and to all other member clubs is to
`advance the interests of the League in its home territory. This primary obligation
`includes, but is not limited to, maximizing fan support, including attendance, in its
`home territory.
`
`(emphasis added). The Relocation Policies further confirm that “no club has an ‘entitlement’ to
`
`relocate simply because it perceives an opportunity for enhanced club revenues in another
`
`location.” In other words, the Relocation Policies first and foremost favor a team’s home territory
`
`over relocation in order to promote team stability – which is thus clearly one of the procompetitive
`
`goals of the Relocation Policies - and all other considerations are viewed through that narrow lens.
`
`Because the Relocation Policies were adopted to address Defendants’ antitrust violations,
`
`Defendants are not free to disregard them. When Defendants breach the Relocation Policies that
`
`are in place to mitigate their collective actions, they essentially re-violate the antitrust laws those
`
`Policies were designed to comply with. This has the effect of putting Defendants in the same
`
`place they were at the time the Ninth Circuit rendered its decision in Los Angeles Memorial
`
`Coliseum 35 years ago, i.e., in violation of the antitrust laws. That is precisely what happened
`
`here.
`
`5.
`
`The Raiders were financially successful in Oakland, received significant support
`
`from Oakland, and had one of the most loyal fan bases in the NFL in Oakland (also known as
`
`“Raider Nation”). Further, under both Oakland and Las Vegas’ proposals, the Raiders would
`
`reportedly contribute $500 million toward building a new stadium, and both proposals involved
`
`roughly $600 to $650 million in other private financing.
`
`899062.9
`
`
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-07444-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 8 of 49
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Accordingly, under the Relocation Policies (which presumptively favor NFL teams
`
`staying in their home territories), there was simply no justification for a Raiders’ relocation.
`
`However, Defendants openly ignored those Policies and approved the Raiders’ relocation not
`
`because of some perceived lack of support by Oakland – or some concern about what Oakland was
`
`willing to pay or not pay toward a new or renovated stadium – but because of the supra-
`
`competitive payment Defendants coerced from Las Vegas which they would individually pocket
`
`by supporting the move.
`7.
`
`Most egregiously, Defendants knowingly trampled on the Relocation Policies while
`
`publicly promising Oakland that they would negotiate in good faith. These statements were
`
`blatant misrepresentations and a direct violation of those Policies, which require that Defendants
`
`negotiate in good faith. From 2014 to 2017, the Raiders, through their owner representative, Mark
`
`Davis, publicly stated their desire to stay in Oakland (presumably to continue to reap massive
`
`profits at the expense of Raiders fans and the citizens of Oakland) while they affirmatively sought
`
`to move anywhere else: San Antonio, Los Angeles, San Diego, or Las Vegas. In fact, at one
`
`point, Davis simply stopped speaking to Oakland’s Mayor, Libby Schaaf. By 2016, the NFL
`
`became directly involved through Eric Grubman (“Grubman”), its Executive Vice President in
`
`charge of stadia and relocations. Although Grubman supposedly “negotiated” with Oakland, he
`
`actually criticized Oakland’s every move, including its $1.3 billion proposal for a new stadium
`
`near the Coliseum, the current home of the Raiders. The Raiders, the NFL, and ultimately the vast
`
`majority of NFL Clubs, were just stringing Oakland along as part of their collusive scheme to
`
`move the Raiders.
`8.
`
`For decades, Defendants have tightly limited the supply and territorial allocation of
`
`the professional football teams in the United States by not only limiting the number of NFL Clubs
`
`in the United States, but also collectively controlling, and dictating under what terms and
`
`conditions, cities can have a professional football team presence. There are just 32 teams for the
`
`entire United States and thus cities fiercely compete to be a host city (“Host City”). A three-
`
`fourths vote of all 32 NFL Club owners is required to determine what city a team calls its home,
`
`and under what terms and conditions, including the price. The “price” includes not only hundreds
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`899062.9
`
`
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-07444-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 9 of 49
`
`
`
`of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to be committed to building billion-plus dollar stadia to
`
`benefit the billionaire club owners, but also the “relocation fee” component that – in recent years –
`
`amounts to hundreds of millions of additional dollars that are paid to the other 31 NFL Club
`
`owners whose collective votes control whether a team relocates or stays put. Like the Raiders’
`
`move, the recent relocations of the Rams and Chargers also generated hundreds of millions in such
`
`fees for the remaining NFL Club owners, including Raiders owner Mark Davis. Notably, not a
`
`cent out of these fees is actually committed to directly accommodating any relocation-related
`
`expenses.
`9.
`
`This is not a fair process in a competitive marketplace: It is a NFL-rigged process
`
`that, contrary to the Policies, promotes relocations in order to further line the pockets of NFL Club
`
`owners with millions of dollars paid by their billionaire competitors to the sole detriment of the
`
`Host Cities that are unwilling or unable to pay. It is, essentially, a leveraging of the NFL’s
`
`monopoly power, used to extract value from municipalities through an auction that ignores the
`
`court-mandated objective relocation procedures. Every one of the Relocation Policies’
`
`considerations and factors supported a decision to keep the Raiders in Oakland. However, as a
`
`Host City, Oakland was unable to pay Defendants’ cartel fee, so the Raiders are moving and
`
`paying a bogus $378 million relocation fee.
`10. Worse yet, the Relocation Policies provide no real standard for setting the
`
`relocation fee other than it “will compensate other member clubs of the League for the loss of the
`
`opportunity appropriated by the relocating club and/or the enhancement (if any) in the value of the
`
`franchise resulting from the move.” This guideline indicates that there must be some tangible and
`
`objective economic “value” to relocating a team to support a particular relocation fee. However,
`
`the factors to be supposedly considered are so vague that they support setting the fee as high as
`
`Defendants desire whether the relocating team gains or loses value from the move. But this has
`
`not always been the case; when the Rams left Los Angeles for St. Louis in 1995, they were
`
`charged $29 million, which clearly had more to do with the fact that there were 29 other NFL
`
`teams at the time, rather than any relative comparison of the value of the St. Louis market they
`
`took and the Los Angeles market they returned to the league. Here, objective factors indicate that
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`899062.9
`
`
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-07444-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 10 of 49
`
`
`
`the Defendants lose significant value, with the Raiders moving from a market with proximity to
`
`vibrant and wealthy economic hubs like Silicon Valley and San Francisco/Oakland to a city of
`
`transient vacationers (Las Vegas), and from the 6th largest media market in the country
`
`(encompassing Oakland) to the 40th (encompassing Las Vegas). Thus, this case demonstrates the
`
`sheer arbitrariness of the process by which Defendants set relocation fees and generally decide on
`
`team relocations.
`11.
`
`The costs of Defendants’ collective scheme is enormous, particularly to the public
`
`who bear the brunt of Defendants’ anti-competitive conduct – whether in hundreds of millions of
`
`tax dollars committed to new stadia and paying Defendants’ relocation fees, supra-competitive
`
`ticket and seat licensing fees justified by gigantic and expensive stadia, or in lost investment and
`
`business opportunities when an incumbent Host City, like Oakland, loses a team. And none of this
`
`even begins to consider the toll on the Host City fans who are not only emotionally invested in a
`
`local team, but spend considerable sums of money on team merchandise. Because of the great
`
`demand for professional football, on the one hand, and Defendants’ collective market power over
`
`the allocation of professional football teams to Host Cities, on the other, Defendants can demand
`
`supra-competitive terms – often involving new or renovated stadia at enormous cost to Host Cities
`
`and ultimately the members of the public. This is a case of leveraging of monopoly power,
`
`resulting in an anticompetitive wealth transfer from municipalities to private business, in violation
`
`of the antitrust laws.
`12.
`
`As a core part of the process of demanding these stadia, NFL Clubs, assisted by the
`
`NFL, employ the relocation threat: pay up or watch your team move somewhere else. Other NFL
`
`Clubs are only too happy to support these threats: the relocation threats set the floor for all NFL
`
`stadium negotiations and – when an NFL Club ultimately does relocate – the other NFL Clubs
`
`receive illicit cartel payments in the form of the relocation fee and their own future threats to
`
`relocate become all the more credible. Since 2013, three NFL Clubs have made good on these
`
`relocation threats: the Rams moved from St. Louis to Los Angeles, the Chargers moved from San
`
`Diego to Los Angeles, and the Raiders will be moving from Oakland to Las Vegas. As a result,
`
`the NFL Clubs have shared, or will share, in more than $1.4 billion in relocation fees.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`899062.9
`
`
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-07444-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 11 of 49
`
`
`
`13.
`
`The NFL’s boycott of Oakland violates the antitrust laws. Specifically, the NFL
`
`controls the number of professional football franchises and where they are located, which gives
`
`them complete market power. Also, as a cartel, courts have subjected the NFL to antitrust liability
`
`in the context of team relocations, and that liability compelled the NFL to adopt the Relocation
`
`Policies described above. Contrary to these Policies, Defendants simply boycotted Oakland in
`
`favor of Las Vegas, even though Oakland is a lucrative market and made a significant stadium
`
`proposal to Defendants to keep the Raiders at home. Once again, Defendants acted in this manner
`
`to collect the massive relocation fee that the Raiders’ move generates.
`14. Moreover, Oakland was significantly handicapped in its effort to keep the Raiders
`
`by the fact that only a relocation would result in a payment to the other 31 NFL Clubs; there is no
`
`mechanism for a Host City to match these payments. So if the Raiders remained in Oakland, the
`
`other NFL Clubs would receive nothing. Through this decidedly skewed process, Defendants
`
`concertedly refused to deal with Oakland (like the Rams with St. Louis and the Chargers with San
`
`Diego before). It was immaterial to Defendants that the Raiders were financially successful in
`
`Oakland, received significant support from Oakland, and had one of the most loyal fan bases in the
`
`NFL, the Raider Nation. Maximizing their cartel fee – ultimately at the expense of the consuming
`
`public and taxpayers – is what really matters to Defendants.
`15.
`
`The Defendants’ unlawful conduct has caused Plaintiff significant injury and loss.
`
`Among other things, Plaintiff has lost the value of its significant investment in the Raiders, is
`
`burdened with a stadium of significantly diminished value, and has lost the revenues generated by
`
`the Raiders’ continuing presence. Defendants disregarded every objective factor in the Relocation
`
`Policies when they collectively agreed to relocate the Raiders from Oakland, thus concertedly
`
`boycotting and refusing to deal with Oakland on objective terms in an effort to maximize their
`
`payments, as well as leveraging their monopoly power, by charging supra-competitive prices to
`
`another host city (Las Vegas) and the consuming public (fans) for the presence of a professional
`
`football team. Because Defendants’ collective action was not grounded in objective criteria and
`
`violated their own Relocation Policies, it lacks any pro-competitive justifications.
`
`/ / /
`
`899062.9
`
`
`
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-07444-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 12 of 49
`
`
`
`16.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action for violations of the antitrust laws and
`
`breach of contract, among other claims, arising from Defendants’ unlawful conduct. As
`
`demonstrated in more detail below, because of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to,
`
`among other remedies, treble damages from Defendants under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 15; a
`
`disgorgement of the enormous supra-competitive payments that Defendants have received, and
`
`will receive, from their unlawful conduct; and damages for Defendants’ breach of their own
`
`Relocation Policies– i.e., Policies to which Plaintiff, as the host of the Raiders, is an intended
`
`beneficiary.
`II.
`
`PARTIES
`17.
`
`Plaintiff City of Oakland is a municipal corporation located in California. Oakland
`
`is an indirect owner of the Coliseum at which the Raiders currently play professional football in
`
`the NFL.
`18.
`
`Defendant The National Football League is an unincorporated association
`
`consisting of the NFL Clubs. The NFL’s principal place of business is 345 Park Avenue, New
`
`York, New York 10065.
`19.
`
`The NFL Clubs are 32 separately-owned and independently-operated professional
`
`football franchises organized and operating for profit in the states set forth below. In total, NFL
`
`Clubs play, or practice in, at least 23 different states and collectively generate revenue of
`
`approximately $14 billion:
`
`Defendant NFL Club
`Address
`
`Arizona Cardinals Football Club LLC
`8701 Hardy Drive
`Tempe, Arizona 85284
`Atlanta Falcons Football Club, LLC
`4400 Falcon Parkway
`Flowery Branch, Georgia 30542
`Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership
`1 Winning Drive
`Owing Mills, Maryland 21117
`
`State of
`Organization
`(state of operation,
`if different)
`Delaware
`(Arizona)
`
`NFL Club Name
`
`Arizona Cardinals
`
`Georgia
`
`Atlanta Falcons
`
`Maryland
`
`Baltimore Ravens
`
`899062.9
`
`
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-07444-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 13 of 49
`
`
`
`Defendant NFL Club
`Address
`
`Buffalo Bills, LLC
`One Bills Drive
`Orchard Park, New York 14127
`Panthers Football, LLC
`800 South Mint Street
`Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
`The Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc.
`Halas Hall
`1920 Football Drive
`Lake Forest, Illinois 60045
`Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.
`One Paul Brown Stadium
`Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
`Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC
`76 Lou Groza Boulevard
`Berea, Ohio 44017
`Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd.
`Cowboys Center
`One Cowboys Parkway
`Irving, Texas 75063
`PDB Sports, Ltd.
`13655 Broncos Parkway
`Englewood, Colorado 80112
`The Detroit Lions, Inc.
`222 Republic Drive
`Allen Park, Michigan 48101
`Green Bay Packers, Inc.
`1265 Lombardi Avenue
`Green Bay, Wisconsin 54304
`Houston NFL Holdings, LP
`Two Reliant Park
`Houston, Texas 77054
`Indianapolis Colts, Inc.
`7001 West 56th Street
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46254
`Jacksonville Jaguars, LLC
`One Alltell Stadium Place
`Jacksonville, Florida 32202
`Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc.
`One Arrowhead Drive
`Kansas City, Missouri 64129
`
`State of
`Organization
`(state of operation,
`if different)
`Delaware
`(New York)
`
`NFL Club Name
`
`Buffalo Bills
`
`North Carolina
`
`Carolina Panthers
`
`Delaware
`(Illinois)
`
`Chicago Bears
`
`Ohio
`
`Cincinnati Bengals
`
`Delaware
`(Ohio)
`
`Cleveland Browns
`
`Texas
`
`Dallas Cowboys
`
`Colorado
`
`Denver Broncos
`
`Michigan
`
`Detroit Lions
`
`Wisconsin
`
`Green Bay Packers
`
`Delaware
`(Texas)
`
`Delaware
`(Indiana)
`
`Delaware
`(Florida)
`
`Texas
`(Missouri)
`
`Houston Texans
`
`Indianapolis Colts
`
`Jacksonville Jaguars
`
`Kansas City Chiefs
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`899062.9
`
`
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-07444-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 14 of 49
`
`
`
`State of
`Organization
`(state of operation,
`if different)
`
`NFL Club Name
`
`California
`
`Los Angeles Chargers
`
`Delaware
`(California)
`
`Los Angeles Rams
`
`Florida
`
`Miami Dolphins
`
`Delaware
`(Minnesota)
`
`Delaware
`(Massachusetts)
`
`Delaware
`(Louisiana)
`
`New York
`(New Jersey)
`
`Delaware
`(New Jersey)
`
`Minnesota Vikings
`
`New England Patriots
`
`New Orleans Saints
`
`New York Giants
`
`New York Jets
`
`California
`
`Oakland Raiders
`
`Pennsylvania
`
`Philadelphia Eagles
`
`Pennsylvania
`
`Pittsburgh Steelers
`
`Delaware
`(California)
`
`San Francisco 49ers
`
`Washington
`
`Seattle Seahawks
`
`Defendant NFL Club
`Address
`
`Chargers Football Company, LLC
`3333 Susan Street
`Costa Mesa, California 92626
`The Rams Football Company, LLC
`29899 Agoura Road
`Agoura Hills, California 91301
`Miami Dolphins, Ltd.
`7500 SW 30th Street
`Davie, Florida 33314
`Minnesota Vikings Football, LLC
`9520 Viking Drive
`Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
`New England Patriots LLC
`One Patriot Place
`Foxborough, Massachusetts 02035
`New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC
`5800 Airline Drive
`Metairie, Louisiana 70003
`New York Football Giants, Inc.
`Timex Performance Center
`1925 Giants Drive
`East Rutherford, New Jersey 07073
`New York Jets LLC
`1 Jets Drive
`Florham Park, New Jersey 07932
`The Oakland Raiders,
`A California Limited Partnership
`1220 Harbor Bay Parkway
`Alameda, California 94502
`Philadelphia Eagles, LLC
`1 Novacare Way
`Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19145
`Pittsburgh Steelers LLC
`3400 South Water Street
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15203
`Forty Niners Football Company LLC
`4949 Centennial Boulevard
`Santa Clara, California 95054
`Football Northwest LLC
`12 Seahawks Way
`Renton, Washington 98056
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`899062.9
`
`
`
`10
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-07444-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 15 of 49
`
`
`
`Defendant NFL Club
`Address
`
`Buccaneers Team LLC
`One Buccaneer Place
`Tampa, Florida 33607
`Tennessee Football, Inc.
`460 Great Circle Road
`Nashville, Tennessee 37228
`Pro-Football, Inc.
`21300 Redskin Park Drive
`Ashburn, Virginia 20147
`III.
`
`State of
`Organization
`(state of operation,
`if different)
`Delaware
`(Florida)
`
`Delaware
`(Tennessee)
`
`Maryland
`(Virginia)
`
`NFL Club Name
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket