City of Oakland v Raiders, NFL
Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/archive/past-nfl-cases/city-of-oakland-v-raiders-nfl/
In the first three parts of this series we took a deep-dive into three questions that will determine the City of Oakland’s antitrust standing. In this, our final installment we’ll take a look at the NFL’s relocation policy and whether it constitutes a contract with Host Cities such as Oakland.
On Friday the NFL, and Mark Davis, led Raiders responded to the City of Oakland’s recent brief, hoping to put a quick end to their lawsuit seeking damages for the Raiders’ relocation to Las Vegas. A quick view of the contents reveals that the NFL is still pursuing the same arguments as before the response from the City was filed, namely…
On Friday the NFL responded to the City of Oakland in a bid for early dismissal of the anti-trust lawsuit related to the Raiders relocation to Las Vegas. In Part 1 I looked at the NFL’s claims that Oakland did not properly allege injury under anti-trust law, which was a requirement of Judge Spero’s order dismissing Oaklands first complaint with leave to amend. In the amended complaint, attorney Jim Quinn, representing Oakland went into great detail outlining the NFL’s cartel-like structure and how that anti-competitive structure had damaged the city in its efforts to retain the Raiders, or at least have a viable chance of hosting another NFL team. I felt the clarifications and case law cited in Oakland’s prior reply brief were strong enough to survive the NFL and Raiders’ arguments to dismiss in that area, but other elements remain on the table.
In Part 1 of our deep-dive on the Oakland lawsuit, we covered whether Oakland had properly alleged an antitrust claim and in Part 2, if Oakland was the proper plaintiff. In Part 3 we examine the question, “Did Oakland suffer a direct injury?” as we look at the NFL’s arguments surrounding the NFL’s motion to dismiss.
Following the announcement of the Raiders impending relocation to Las Vegas, the City of Oakland filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Raiders and NFL claiming damages due to their artificial restraints on trade, breach of contract, and violations of their own policies. . The Raiders and NFL, in a motion to dismiss, deny that they are in violation of antitrust law and claim they are merely businessmen looking after business. The government surprisingly stepped in filing a brief opposing Oakland’s ability to claim lost tax revenue as part of the damages the city will suffer as a result of the team’s departure. In what I feel is the strongest brief of the lawsuit to date, the legendary litigator who is representing Oakland pro bono, James “Jim” Quinn, responded in opposition