Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02787/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02787-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RELATE

13-cv-02787-RMW 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF 

BASEBALL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-02787-RMW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

RELATE

Re: Dkt. No. 64

On February 11, 2015, defendants Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Allan Huber 

“Bud” Selig, and twenty-nine of the thirty Major League Baseball clubs move to relate Miranda et 

al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-5349 to either: (1) the above 

captioned case (“City of San Jose”); or (2) Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, 

Case No. 3:14-cv-00608-JCS. Dkt. No. 64. Plaintiffs in the Senne case filed a response, in which 

they argue that the Miranda and Senne cases should not be related. Dkt. No. 66. Neither the 

plaintiffs in City of San Jose nor in Miranda have responded. For the reasons set forth below, the 

court denies defendants’ motion to relate.

I. CITY OF SAN JOSE AND MIRANDA

Under Local Rule 3-12(a), “an action is related to another when: (1) The actions concern 

substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) It appears likely that there 

will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases 

are conducted before different Judges.” Defendants argue that the City of San Jose and Miranda

Case 5:13-cv-02787-RMW Document 69 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 3
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RELATE

13-cv-02787-RMW 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

cases both accuse Major League Baseball of restraining competition in violation of federal 

antitrust laws. Dkt. No. 65, at 2. According to defendants, “[b]oth actions turn on the same 

determinative legal question—whether the Supreme Court’s longstanding antitrust exemption 

continues to apply to ‘the business of baseball.’” Id. Defendants conclude that because the cases 

revolve around the same “determinative legal question,” “it appears likely that there will be an 

unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are 

conducted before different judges.” Id. at 2–3. The court disagrees.

Although both City of San Jose and Miranda generally involve the application of the longstanding baseball antitrust exemption, this is where the similarities end. The cases arise from 

different “property, transaction[s] or event[s],” do not involve “substantially the same parties,” and 

implicate different legal questions. Civ. L. R. 3-12(a). 

First, whereas City of San Jose arose out of the proposed relocation of the Oakland 

Athletics Baseball Club from Oakland to San Jose, see Dkt. No. 41, Miranda challenges Major 

League Baseball’s practices regarding the compensation of minor league professional baseball 

players, including the use of reserve clauses in minor league players’ contracts, see Case No. 3:14-

cv-5349, Dkt. No. 1.

Second, while Major League Baseball and its member franchises are defendants in both the 

City of San Jose and Miranda cases, the cases involve different plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel. 

City of San Jose was brought by the City of San Jose and the San Jose Diridon Development 

Authority based on Major League Baseball’s failure to approve the proposed relocation of the 

Oakland Athletics to San Jose. Dkt. No. 41, at 4. By contrast, Miranda was brought by several 

minor league baseball players on behalf of a class comprised of all minor league baseball players 

employed by defendant Major League Baseball franchise clubs. see Case No. 3:14-cv-5349, Dkt. 

No. 1, at 9–10.

Third, the cases involve different applications of baseball’s antitrust exception. The 

Miranda case challenges the legality of the antitrust exemption’s application to minor league 

players and the reserve clause in their contracts, which is the subject of several Supreme Court 

Case 5:13-cv-02787-RMW Document 69 Filed 03/02/15 Page 2 of 3
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RELATE

13-cv-02787-RMW 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

decisions. See Federal Base Ball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Base 

Ball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922); Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953); Flood 

v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972). City of San Jose, on the other hand, involved the question of 

whether club relocation is a part of the “business of baseball” subject to the Supreme Court’s 

holdings in Federal Baseball, Toolson, and Flood. See Dkt. No. 41, at 3. While defendants are 

correct that both cases ultimately turn on the application of the baseball antitrust exemption, the 

specific legal issues are largely distinct. 

Accordingly, because the court finds that City of San Jose and Miranda involve different 

issues, parties, and facts, the court concludes that the cases should not be related. Defendants’

motion to relate City of San Jose and Miranda is therefore denied.

II. SENNE AND MIRANDA

The question of whether to relate the Miranda and Senne cases is not properly before this 

court. Under Civil Local Rule 3-12(f), which governs the order in which the relationship between 

more than two cases should be evaluated, the proper procedure is as follows. First, the judge 

assigned to the lowest-numbered case decides whether there exists a relationship between the 

lowest-numbered case and the potentially related case. Civ. L. R. 3-12(f)(2). Next, “the judges 

assigned to the other cases in order of filing” decide whether relation is proper. 

Here, because City of San Jose is the lowest-numbered case, the undersigned must first 

determine whether to relate Miranda to City of San Jose before Judge Spero, who is assigned to 

Senne, can determine whether Senne and Miranda should be related. See Civ. L. R. 3-12(f)(2). As 

discussed above, the court declines to relate City of San Jose and Miranda. 

For the reasons set forth above, defendants’ motion to relate City of San Jose and Miranda

is denied. The court takes no position on whether Senne and Miranda should be related.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2015

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02787-RMW Document 69 Filed 03/02/15 Page 3 of 3