PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL SCHOOLS AND CLUBS, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
BOWIE K. KUHN, AS COMMISSIONER OF ORGANIZED BASEBALL; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL LEAGUES, AND JOHN H. JOHNSON, AS PRESIDENT; THE CAROLINA LEAGUE OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL CLUBS, INC., A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION, AND JAMES B. MILLS, AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the business of baseball is excluded from federal antitrust laws, and thus the district court properly dismissed the claims for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
Appellant, a baseball franchise holder, sued the Commissioner of Baseball and league officials alleging violations of antitrust laws and a pendent sta…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pendent State Law Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This case concerns a dispute over a baseball franchise in the Carolina League. Professional Baseball Schools & Clubs, Inc., appellant here, brought suit in federal district court against the Commissioner of Baseball, the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues and its president, and the' Carolina League of Professional Baseball Clubs and its president, alleging various violations of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 & 2; 15 U.S.C. § 14. The complaint also included a pendent state claim. The district court dismissed the complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
Appellant, holder of a baseball'franchise in the Carolina League at the time this suit was filed, challenged the following activities of the defendants as violative of federal antitrust laws:
1. the player assignment system and the franchise location system,
2. monopolization of the business of professional baseball, and
3. the Carolina League’s rule requiring member teams to only play games with other teams that also belong to the National Association.
Appellant also lodged a state law claim against the Carolina League and its president alleging reliance upon false promises.
The jurisdiction of the court was invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and 15 U.S.C. § 15.
Although it may be anomalous, the exclusion of the business of baseball from the antitrust laws is well established. Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258, 92 S.Ct. 2099, 32 L.Ed.2d 728 (1972); Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U.S. 356, 74 S.Ct. 78, 98 L.Ed. 64 (1953); Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200, 42 S.Ct. 465, 66 L.Ed. 898 (1922). Each of the activities appellant alleged as violative of the antitrust laws plainly concerns matters that are an integral part of the business of baseball. The district court therefore properly dismissed the antitrust claims for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Since no independent basis existed for federal jurisdiction of the state law claim, the district court properly dismissed it for want of subject matter jurisdiction. See Daniels v. All Steel Equipment, Inc., 590 F. 2d 111, 114 (5th Cir.1979).
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Butterworth v. Nat'l League OF Prof'l Baseball Clubs, 644 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1994)…h Circuit concluded that the “Supreme Court intended to exempt the business of baseball, not any particular facet of that business, from the federal antitrust laws.” Finley, 569 F. 2d at 541; accord Professional Baseball Schs. & Clubs, Inc. v. Kuhn, 693 F. 2d 1085, 1086 (11th Cir.1982) (concluding that business of baseball, including franchise location system, is exempt from antitrust laws); Salerno v. American League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 429 F. 2d 1003 (2d Cir.1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 1001, 91…
-
Major League Baseball v. Crist, 331 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir. 2003)…s, 259 U.S. 200, 42 S.Ct. 465, 66 L.Ed. 898 (1922); Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356, 74 S.Ct. 78, 98 L.Ed. 64 (1953); Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258, 92 S.Ct. 2099, 32 L.Ed.2d 728 (1972); Prof'l Baseball Schools and Clubs, Inc. v. Kuhn, 693 F. 2d 1085 (11th Cir.1982). The district court persuasively established this fact, and the Attorney General no longer contends that the federal exemption extends only to the player reserve system. Instead, the Attorney General argues that the exemption has l…
-
Morsani v. Major League Baseball, 79 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (M.D. Fla. 1999)…c., 346 U.S. 356, 74 S.Ct. 78, 98 L.Ed. 64 (1953); Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Prof'l Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200, 42 S.Ct. 465, 66 L.Ed. 898 (1922); Prof'l Baseball Schools and Clubs, Inc. v. Kuhn, 693 F.2d 1085, 1085-86 (11th Cir.1982) ("the exclusion of the business of baseball from the antitrust laws is well-established”); Charles O. Finley & Co. v. Kuhn, 569 F.2d 527 (7th Cir.1978); Portland Baseball Club v. Kuhn, 491 F.2d 1101 (9th Cir.1974…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1972)
- Fed. Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. Nat'l League of Prof'l Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1922)
- Toolson v. NEW York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (U.S. 1953)
- Daniels v. ALL Steel Equip., Inc., 590 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1979)