Dellapenna, Joseph

English

bepress Legal Repository

Introduction to the Thirty-Fifth Annual Theodore L. Reimel Moot Court Competition

Villanova University School of Law: Digital Repository

Volume 2 Issue 2 Article 1 1995 Introduction to the Thirty-Fifth Annual Theodore L. Reimel Moot Court Competition Joseph Dellapenna Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/mslj  Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, and the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons Recommended Citation Joseph Dellapenna, Introduction to the Thirty-Fifth Annual Theodore L. Reimel Moot Court Competition , 2 Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports L.J. 161 (1995). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/mslj/vol2/iss2/1 This Symposia is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. VILLANOVA SPORTS &ENTERTAINMENT LAW FORUMVOLUME II 1995 NUMBER 2INTRODUCTION TO THE THIR1Y-FIFTH ANNUALTHEODORE L. REIMEL MOOT COURTCOMPETITIONT HE Reimel Competition is an intraschool tournament dedi-cated to the late Theodore L. Reimel, Judge for the Pennsyl-vania Court of Common Pleas from 1953 to 1973. The competitionis a moot court program for second and third year students which isdesigned to foster student development in written and oral advo-cacy through simulated appellate argument. Each year, roughlytwo hundred students enter the competition in two-member teamsand argue the case through elimination rounds which begin earlyin the Fall Semester and culminate in a final argument which isheld each spring. The Villanova Appellate Advocacy Bowl and acash award is presented to each member of the winning team.The Villanova University School of Law was honored to havethe Honorable Judge Carol Los Mansmann of the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Third Circuit, Judge Paul V. Niemeyer of the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and Judge John W. Bissellof the U.S. District Court for the District of NewJersey preside overthis year's final argument. Former jurists for the finals of the Rei-mel Competition also include Chief Justice William H. Rehnquistand Justice Antonin Scalia and former Justices William J. Brennan,Jr., Tom C. Clark, William 0. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall and By-ron R. White.The 1994-95 Reimel Moot Court Competition addressed MajorLeague Baseball's historic exemption from the Sherman AntitrustAct in the context of franchise relocation.* The facts and proce-dural history of the case is as follows:* Professor Joseph W. Dellapenna drafted this year's Moot Court problem.Professor Dellapenna has been on the faculty of Villanova Law School since 1976.He received his bachelor's degree from University of Michigan, J.D. from DetroitCollege, and LL.M.S. from George Washington in 1969 and Columbia Universityin 1975.(161)1Dellapenna: Introduction to the Thirty-Fifth Annual Theodore L. Reimel Moot CPublished by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository, 1995162 VILLANOVA SPORTS & ENT. LAW FORUM [Vol. II: p. 161In 1981 a group of investors headed by Warren Giles pur-chased the Philadelphia Phillies who play professional baseball as amember of the National League. Due to the failures of the team onthe field in the late 1980's and early 1990's, attendance at Phillies'games began to fall and Giles let it be known that the Phillies werein poor financial shape. Giles stated that he would entertain offersto purchase a controlling interest in Philadelphia National BaseballClub, Inc. Giles and most of the other investors were willing to selleighty-six percent of the team to a potential owner who was willingto keep the team in Philadelphia.In 1991 a group led by Buddy Ryan and Charles Barkley en-tered into secret negotiations with Giles. Sporadic negotiationsover the course of two years finally culminated in a deal to sell thePhillies to the Ryan-Barkley group, which had incorporated itself asthe Phoenix Phillies, Inc. ("Phoenix Phillies").On March 14, 1993, the Philadelphia National Baseball Club,Inc. ("Philadelphia National Baseball Club") and the Phoenix Phil-lies signed a contract for the sale of the Philadelphia Phillies to thePhoenix group for $212,000,000. The Phoenix group intended totransfer the Phillies baseball team to Phoenix. The transfer of own-ership, however, required the approval of three-quarters of the Na-tional League and three-quarters of the American League.The League was not able to consider the contract until July1993. Therefore, in order to avoid the adverse effects that an an-nouncement of a move to Phoenix might have on ticket sales, theparties agreed to keep the contract a secret until after the WorldSeries. Despite these efforts, rumors of the move began to circulatein Philadelphia. In response, Philadelphia's Mayor Rendell beganto seek local investors willing to purchase the Phillies. On October26, however, the Phoenix Phillies held a news conference and an-nounced its deal to purchase the Phillies.On November 3, 1993, Philadelphia Baseball Renaissance, Inc.,("Philadelphia Baseball Renaissance") a Philadelphia-based group,made public its offer to purchase the Phillies for $234,000,000. Theoffer was made possible, in part, by a deal to renegotiate the Phil-lies' lease on Veteran's Stadium and promises from state and localgovernment to help finance a new baseball-only stadium within tenyears. These concessions would be worth approximately $8,000,000to $10,000,000 per year over the twenty-five year life of the lease.Giles declared that he, personally, would prefer to see the team re-main in Philadelphia, but that the outcome would depend on the2Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, Vol. 2, Iss. 2 [1995], Art. 1https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/mslj/vol2/iss2/1INTRODUCTION TO REIMEL COMPETITIONaction taken by the team owners at the League meetings inDecember.The team owners from both the National and AmericanLeagues met in Las Vegas, Nevada in December to consider the saleof the Phillies. Both the Phoenix and Philadelphia-based groupswere given the opportunity to make formal presentations on themerits of their respective offers at a joint meeting of the Americanand National League owners. After the presentations, the twoleagues deliberated the matter in closed meetings. The AmericanLeague owners agreed to postpone any decision until after the Na-tional League owners voted. Although Giles did not attend the for-mal presentations before both leagues, he did participate in theNational League meeting to debate and decide whether to approvethe sale to the Phoenix group. The National League voted to denythe transfer to Phoenix by a vote of eight in favor and six against.Immediately after the National League voted against the trans-fer to Phoenix, Giles met with representatives of Philadelphia Base-ball Renaissance. Giles and Philadelphia Baseball Renaissancesigned a contract to sell the Philadelphia Phillies to PhiladelphiaBaseball Renaissance for $234,000,000. The National League andAmerican League unanimously approved the sale of the Phillies toPhiladelphia Baseball Renaissance. The entire matter was settledwithin forty-eight hours of the rejection of the sale to the Phoenixgroup.Following the National League's rejection of the deal topurchase the Philadelphia Phillies, the Phoenix Phillies broughtthis present action in the United States District Court for the Dis-trict of Villanova.The Phoenix Phillies alleged that the National League ownersconspired to restrain trade by excluding it from the Phoenix mar-ket area and to establish monopoly control of the marketing ofbaseball in the United States in violation of sections one and two ofthe Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, depriving it of theopportunity to engage in the business of baseball in interstate com-merce. The Phoenix Phillies prayed for an award of damages andan injunction against what it characterized as a continuing violationof sections one and two of the Sherman Act. In effect, the PhoenixPhillies were asking the court to order the move of the Phillies fromPhiladelphia to Phoenix. Philadelphia National Baseball Club andPhiladelphia Baseball Renaissance were joined as defendants in thisaction by the Phoenix Phillies. The American League was notjoined.199513Dellapenna: Introduction to the Thirty-Fifth Annual Theodore L. Reimel Moot CPublished by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository, 1995164 VILLANOVA SPORTS & ENT. LAW FORUMThe defendants denied the allegations made by the PhoenixPhillies. After various motions were made, a pre-trial conferencewas held and the parties agreed to a stipulated set of facts. On thebasis of the stipulated facts, both parties moved for summary judg-ment under FED. R. Cirv. P. 56.The district court granted the defendant's motion for sum-mary judgment for two reasons. First, the district court held thatthe National League is immune from the antitrust laws of theUnited States or of the several states. Second, the district courtheld that, even assuming that baseball is subject to the antitrustlaws, the National League operates as a single entity. As a singleentity the National League and its "owner-participants" cannot con-spire with themselves in violation of section one of the ShermanAct. Lastly, the district court held that the plaintiff lacked standingto bring a complaint against the defendant for violation of sectiontwo of the Sherman Act.The plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appealsfor the Twelfth Circuit, which reversed the district court's grant ofsummaryjudgment. In writing for the majority, ChiefJudge Landisbegan by incorporating the facts as stipulated by the parties, recit-ing a brief history of baseball and stating that the court can takejudicial notice of most publicly known facts relating to baseball.The Twelfth Circuit held that baseball is no longer exemptfrom the operation of antitrust laws. The court indicated that base-ball's immunity from the antitrust laws rests on an outmoded con-cept of interstate commerce and predicted that, if presented withthe question, the Supreme Court would eliminate baseball's judi-cially created exemption. It additionally rested its decision on thebasis that the Supreme Court precedents establishing baseball's ex-emption dealt only with the reserve clause in players contracts.Since the reserve clause had been eliminated through collectivebargaining, the court reasoned, baseball's exemption was elimi-nated with it.The Twelfth Circuit also rejected the district court's findingthat the National League constitutes a single entity and is, thus, im-mune from section one liability. Following the Ninth Circuit's de-termination that the National Football League is not a single entity,the court held that the denial of entry into the market to Phoenixwas a per se violation of section one of the Sherman Act. As a resultof these holdings, the court required that the district court bothaward damages and grant injunctive relief to Phoenix. In dissent-ing from the majority holding, Judge Chandler indicated that he[Vol. II: p. 1614Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, Vol. 2, Iss. 2 [1995], Art. 1https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/mslj/vol2/iss2/11995] INTRODUCTION To REIMEL COMPETITION 165would have affirmed the district court on both the antitrust exemp-tion and single-entity issues. This appeal followed.The brief in support of petitioners was written by WilliamGeorges, a third year student and graduate of Brown University andSidney Liebesman, also in his third year and a graduate of the Uni-versity of Delaware. The respondents' brief was written by secondyear students Joanne Judge, who attended St. Joseph's University,and Barbara Williams who attended Northern Illinois University.5Dellapenna: Introduction to the Thirty-Fifth Annual Theodore L. Reimel Moot CPublished by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository, 19956Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, Vol. 2, Iss. 2 [1995], Art. 1https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/mslj/vol2/iss2/1

https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&amp;context=mslj

Introduction to the Thirty-Fifth Annual Theodore L. Reimel Moot Court Competition

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

bepress Legal Repository

Villanova University School of Law: Digital Repository