{"id":2075,"date":"2016-04-27T11:58:13","date_gmt":"2016-04-27T11:58:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/?p=2075"},"modified":"2021-07-08T18:55:53","modified_gmt":"2021-07-08T18:55:53","slug":"partial-victory-for-major-league-baseball-as-california-court-dismisses-class-action-claims-against-teams-outside-california","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/partial-victory-for-major-league-baseball-as-california-court-dismisses-class-action-claims-against-teams-outside-california\/","title":{"rendered":"Partial Victory for Major League Baseball as California Court Dismisses Class Action Claims Against Teams Outside California"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the wake of highly-publicized fan injuries at Major League ballparks, Oakland A\u2019s season ticket holder Gail Payne (who has not been injured but claims to \u201cduck and weave\u201d to avoid flying balls and bats) filed a class action suit in July 2015 against Major League Baseball, its Commissioner, and all 30 Major League Baseball Clubs in California federal court.\u00a0\u00a0(Payne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (dba Major League Baseball) and Robert D. Manfred, Jr. et al<\/u>, N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:15-cv-03229-YGR.)\u00a0 Payne was later joined by two more plaintiffs, one of whom was actually injured by a foul ball at a Dodgers game.<\/p>\n

As noted in my previous article, the\u00a0Payne\u00a0<\/em>case seeks to challenge the century-old \u201cbaseball rule\u201d which holds that spectators assume the risks inherent in the activity, including being struck by thrown balls and bats.\u00a0See the article.<\/a>\u00a0The \u201cbaseball rule\u201d parallels the general rule that participants in sports and recreational activities assume the risks of those pursuits.\u00a0 Plaintiffs claim that, despite the baseball rule, Major League Baseball has a legal duty to protect spectators from injury by retrofitting ballparks with protective netting from \u201cfoul pole to foul pole.\u201d<\/p>\n

In late 2015, the Commissioner of Baseball recommended \u2013 but did not require \u2013 that MLB Clubs consider additional netting.\u00a0\u00a0See the NY Times article.<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0Several clubs, including the Minnesota Twins, Kansas City Royals, and the Atlanta Braves, have now installed extended netting.\u00a0\u00a0See the NY Times article.<\/a><\/p>\n

MLB and the other defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Payne case, and the Court held a hearing on that motion on March 22, 2016.\u00a0 In an order dated April 8, 2016, the court dismissed Payne\u2019s claims against the MLB Clubs from outside California, for lack of jurisdiction.\u00a0 Payne had argued that the California federal court had jurisdiction over these out-of-state Clubs because they regularly play baseball in California.\u00a0 The court disagreed, noting that Payne\u2019s claims pertained to the conditions at local stadiums, which the visiting Clubs did not control.\u00a0 Further, Payne\u2019s claims did not specifically arise out of the activities of the out-of-state Clubs, but would have arisen even if any particular Club did not play at that stadium.\u00a0 Payne also argued that ticket-back liability waivers constituted a contract between spectators and the out-of-state Clubs, giving the court jurisdiction over those Clubs.\u00a0 The Court pointed out that the ticket-back waivers would presumably be provided by the local venue, and therefore would not form a contract between the ticket holder and the visiting Club.\u00a0 The Court dismissed the claims against the out-of-state Clubs with prejudice, meaning that Payne and her co-plaintiffs will not have an opportunity to amend their California complaint to assert any new claims against those Clubs.<\/p>\n

With respect to the remaining defendants (MLB, the Commissioner, and the five California Clubs), the court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss.\u00a0 Defendants contend that plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims in federal court.\u00a0 To obtain standing, a plaintiff must show that there has been an \u201cinjury in fact,\u201d which was caused by the defendant\u2019s conduct, and that the injury can be redressed by a court decision.\u00a0 Defendants argued that plaintiffs lacked standing because the claimed risk of future injury to baseball spectators is too speculative to constitute an \u201cinjury in fact.\u201d\u00a0 The court cited United States Supreme Court case law holding that while threatened injury must be \u201ccertainly impending,\u201d and \u201callegations of possible future injury\u201d are not sufficient to confer to bring claims in federal court, a \u201csubstantial risk of harm\u201d may be enough.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s April 8 Order directs the parties to conduct limited discovery on this issue.\u00a0 The discovery is limited to information directly related to the standing determination, such as \u201cinformation that can be directly used to calculate \u2018the probability that a given individual, seated in plaintiffs\u2019 specific sections at the two California stadiums in question, will be hit by a stray ball or bat in the course of a given game or season.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 After the discovery and supplemental briefing, the court will hold a further hearing on August 23, 2016.<\/p>\n

The Court will then be tasked with determining whether the factual information presented by the parties shows that injury to a Major League Baseball spectator at a California ballpark is \u201ccertainly impending,\u201d a \u201csubstantial risk,\u201d or merely a showing of \u201cpossible future injury.\u201d\u00a0 The Payne plaintiff\u2019s claims will survive only if they can meet that high (although somewhat subjective) standing threshold.\u00a0 It remains to be seen whether the plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys will pursue the out-of-state teams for similar claims in their home jurisdictions.\u00a0 And, if the court dismisses the entire case at the outset on jurisdictional and standing grounds, the question of whether the \u201cbaseball rule\u201d will be modified for modern ballparks and spectators will remain unanswered for now.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the wake of highly-publicized fan injuries at Major League ballparks, Oakland A\u2019s season ticket holder Gail Payne (who has not been injured but claims to \u201cduck and weave\u201d to avoid flying balls and bats) filed a class action suit in July 2015 against Major League Baseball, its Commissioner, and all 30 Major League Baseball…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[763,764,691,690],"ppma_author":[2085],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nPartial Victory for Major League Baseball as California Court Dismisses Class Action Claims Against Teams Outside California - Rimon Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/partial-victory-for-major-league-baseball-as-california-court-dismisses-class-action-claims-against-teams-outside-california\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Partial Victory for Major League Baseball as California Court Dismisses Class Action Claims Against Teams Outside California - Rimon Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In the wake of highly-publicized fan injuries at Major League ballparks, Oakland A\u2019s season ticket holder Gail Payne (who has not been injured but claims to \u201cduck and weave\u201d to avoid flying balls and bats) filed a class action suit in July 2015 against Major League Baseball, its Commissioner, and all 30 Major League Baseball…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/partial-victory-for-major-league-baseball-as-california-court-dismisses-class-action-claims-against-teams-outside-california\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Rimon Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-04-27T11:58:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-07-08T18:55:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Rimon Law\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Rimon Law\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/partial-victory-for-major-league-baseball-as-california-court-dismisses-class-action-claims-against-teams-outside-california\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/partial-victory-for-major-league-baseball-as-california-court-dismisses-class-action-claims-against-teams-outside-california\/\",\"name\":\"Partial Victory for Major League Baseball as California Court Dismisses Class Action Claims Against Teams Outside California - Rimon Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-04-27T11:58:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-07-08T18:55:53+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/a2c63d24c3d79ad5e260a8252b8f4d4e\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/partial-victory-for-major-league-baseball-as-california-court-dismisses-class-action-claims-against-teams-outside-california\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/partial-victory-for-major-league-baseball-as-california-court-dismisses-class-action-claims-against-teams-outside-california\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/partial-victory-for-major-league-baseball-as-california-court-dismisses-class-action-claims-against-teams-outside-california\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Partial Victory for Major League Baseball as California Court Dismisses Class Action Claims Against Teams Outside California\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/\",\"name\":\"Rimon Law\",\"description\":\"Law Firm Evolved\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/a2c63d24c3d79ad5e260a8252b8f4d4e\",\"name\":\"Rimon Law\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/2049bd7d731ce64b232d1cb344a8e7ef\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b53c6e44a87df0ec1887222e831d5a78?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b53c6e44a87df0ec1887222e831d5a78?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Rimon Law\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/author\/rimonlaw\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Partial Victory for Major League Baseball as California Court Dismisses Class Action Claims Against Teams Outside California - Rimon Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/partial-victory-for-major-league-baseball-as-california-court-dismisses-class-action-claims-against-teams-outside-california\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Partial Victory for Major League Baseball as California Court Dismisses Class Action Claims Against Teams Outside California - Rimon Law","og_description":"In the wake of highly-publicized fan injuries at Major League ballparks, Oakland A\u2019s season ticket holder Gail Payne (who has not been injured but claims to \u201cduck and weave\u201d to avoid flying balls and bats) filed a class action suit in July 2015 against Major League Baseball, its Commissioner, and all 30 Major League Baseball…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/partial-victory-for-major-league-baseball-as-california-court-dismisses-class-action-claims-against-teams-outside-california\/","og_site_name":"Rimon Law","article_published_time":"2016-04-27T11:58:13+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-07-08T18:55:53+00:00","author":"Rimon Law","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Rimon Law","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/partial-victory-for-major-league-baseball-as-california-court-dismisses-class-action-claims-against-teams-outside-california\/","url":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/partial-victory-for-major-league-baseball-as-california-court-dismisses-class-action-claims-against-teams-outside-california\/","name":"Partial Victory for Major League Baseball as California Court Dismisses Class Action Claims Against Teams Outside California - Rimon Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-04-27T11:58:13+00:00","dateModified":"2021-07-08T18:55:53+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/a2c63d24c3d79ad5e260a8252b8f4d4e"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/partial-victory-for-major-league-baseball-as-california-court-dismisses-class-action-claims-against-teams-outside-california\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/partial-victory-for-major-league-baseball-as-california-court-dismisses-class-action-claims-against-teams-outside-california\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/partial-victory-for-major-league-baseball-as-california-court-dismisses-class-action-claims-against-teams-outside-california\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Partial Victory for Major League Baseball as California Court Dismisses Class Action Claims Against Teams Outside California"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/","name":"Rimon Law","description":"Law Firm Evolved","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/a2c63d24c3d79ad5e260a8252b8f4d4e","name":"Rimon Law","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/2049bd7d731ce64b232d1cb344a8e7ef","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b53c6e44a87df0ec1887222e831d5a78?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b53c6e44a87df0ec1887222e831d5a78?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Rimon Law"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com"],"url":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/author\/rimonlaw\/"}]}},"authors":[{"term_id":2085,"user_id":10,"is_guest":0,"slug":"rimonlaw","display_name":"Rimon Law","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b53c6e44a87df0ec1887222e831d5a78?s=96&d=mm&r=g","user_url":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com","last_name":"Law","first_name":"Rimon","description":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2075"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2075"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2075\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2075"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2075"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2075"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2075"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}