Email a copy of 'Orioles-Nationals Television Dispute Reaches Litigation' to a friend
Loading ...
By Jeff Todd | at
Email a copy of 'Orioles-Nationals Television Dispute Reaches Litigation' to a friend
MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com
hide arrows scroll to top
CG
The odds of the Nationals beating Peter Angelos in court is slim to none.
NatsLady
Why? The Lerners are good, tough litigators.
CG
Because Peter Angelos got rich enough to buy the Orioles by being a greedy, heartless lawyer who would do whatever it takes to win the case.
Its a mega lawyers baseball team vs. A real state tycoons baseball team in a court case.
Alexander_Brovechkin
Challenging arbitral awards is a lot different than suing tobacco/asbestos companies.
northsfbay
It have to be a bribe or bias of the Arbitrator for the O’s to win in court.
Jeff Todd
Yeah, more or less — you basically have to show a procedural flaw in the arbitration process.
At this point, getting the PI means that the judge thinks there is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, and basically believes that it makes sense to put a hold on enforcing the arbitration award. It is a good sign for the O’s, but hardly the end of things.
The O’s/MASN still have to defeat a motion to dismiss the claim. Then, they have to withstand a motion for summary judgment after discovery. Then, they have to prove the claim and win at trial. If that happens, they’d be looking at another arbitration proceeding.
Of course, each hurdle they clear makes it more likely that they can force a settlement.
Rally Weimaraner
To be awarded a PI in federal court a party (the orioles) simply need to raise a factual question (IE: was the arbitration panel biased) A judge by law cannot rule on a factual question before a party has completed their brief and simply raising a factual issue is often enough to open discovery. Good point at the end regarding settlement, discovery is often used as a tool to force settlement. I can only imagine the anger that would ensue if the O’s try and depose Selig.
Jeff Todd
I don’t think that’s how I’d describe the standards at this stage. That’s more like the summary judgment standard.
1) preliminary injunction: likelihood of success on merits AND harm absent injunction (in essence, does it make sense to make the parties wait, though generally the plaintiff has to show that there’s a pretty good reason other than just money changing hands)
2) motion to dismiss: facts, as pled, state a claim for which requested relief may be granted (i.e., assume everything plaintiff said is true – would they win?)
3) summary judgment: disputed issue of material fact (i.e., is there a reason to hold a trial to determine a fact, or are all the facts already established to the point that a decision can be rendered)
Jeff Todd
From the ruling:
“The court is to look to the questions of irreparable harm on the likelihood of success on the merits in the balance of the equities. The threat to terminate broadcasting rights virtually immediately is a credible threat and one that can cause irreparable harm. … The fairness of the process is what concerns this court most of all. The money and responsibilities of parties should not be dramatically changed while that is reviewed.”
So, the key here is the rights termination threat. Judge is requiring MASN to post a bond in the amount of the extra $ that the Nats are owed under the ruling.
Guest 3637
Maybe I missed something, but it’s not at the full-fledged lawsuit stage yet, as I understand it. The Orioles/MASN still need to show that the arbitral award was flawed, because under the FAA and relevant case law (Hall Street Associates, etc.), the award is valid and must be enforced, baring some manifest disregard for the law/process. I would assume the PI was granted because if they enforced the award and MASN went bankrupt (as they are claiming), then it would not be possible to remedy the situation if the court ruled in MASN’s favor.
At least that’s how I understand it.
Jeff Todd
Well, it is a full-fledged lawsuit, but it is a lawsuit about the validity of the arb award, not the merits of the actual dispute. (I think that’s what you’re getting at.) If MASN/O’s win that, they’d get a new crack at arb.
And yes, the PI is primarily about avoiding irreparable harm, though the fact that the court granted it indicates that it is taking the claim seriously, which is far from a given in a case seeking to overturn an arb award (given the very high standard).
Drunk Richard
So are the odds of them beating the orioles on the field
fcr_lanham
That’s laughable. We beat his firm in court so often its almost a matter of routine. Extremely overrated.
CG
who’s we?
Wek
“The Orioles said that “contracts are meant to be honored,”” but weren’t the Orioles the ones who defaulted several payments?
OhthePossibilities
That wasn’t under a contract though, it was payments awarded by MLB’s panel, which MASN claims were unfair for a number of reasons.
Jeff Todd
If I may put my Nationals’ lawyer hat on … “They most certainly were contractually obligated payments — the contract calls for escalation, by an amount determined through contractually provided mechanisms (including, if necessary, arbitration), and that is precisely what occurred here to determine what was owed!”
Sorry, couldn’t resist … I’ve not been an active litigator for like a year and a half now but the force is strong. Those kinds of statements — “contracts are meant to be honored” — are just great, b/c they are meant to color you on the side of “The Contract.” But at bottom, this is a contractual dispute — the real question is what the parties ought to get under the contract!