Court Opinion

ID: 9403109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 15:01:47.624408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:04.615039
License: Public Domain

22-2859
     Nostalgic Partners, LLC v. The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                           SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 1                 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
 2   held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 3   New York, on the 20th day of June, two thousand twenty-three.
 4
 5   PRESENT:
 6               BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
 7               MICHAEL H. PARK,
 8               ALISON J. NATHAN,
 9                     Circuit Judges.
10   ___________________________________________
11
12   Nostalgic Partners, LLC, DBA The Staten Island
13   Yankees, Oneonta Athletic Corporation, DBA
14   The Norwich Sea Unicorns, Tri-City ValleyCats,
15   Inc.,
16
17                               Plaintiffs-Appellants,                       No. 22-2859
18
19                      v.
20
21   The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, an
22   Unincorporated Association DBA Major League
23   Baseball,
24                       Defendant-Appellee.*
25   ___________________________________________
26
27

              * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption accordingly.
 1   FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS:                                           GREGORY SILBERT, Weil,
 2                                                                        Gotshal & Manges LLP, New
 3                                                                        York, NY (James W. Quinn,
 4                                                                        New York, NY; David J.
 5                                                                        Lender, Eric S. Hochstadt,
 6                                                                        Zachary Schreiber, Weil,
 7                                                                        Gotshal & Manges LLP, New
 8                                                                        York, NY; Mark Pinkert,
 9                                                                        Weil, Gotshal & Manges
10                                                                        LLP, Miami, FL, on the
11                                                                        brief)
12
13   FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE:                                              JEFFREY B. WALL, Sullivan &
14                                                                        Cromwell LLP, Washington,
15                                                                        DC (John L. Hardiman,
16                                                                        Benjamin R. Walker, Jacob
17                                                                        G. Singer, Sullivan &
18                                                                        Cromwell LLP, New York,
19                                                                        NY; Morgan L. Ratner,
20                                                                        Sullivan & Cromwell LLP,
21                                                                        Washington, DC, on the
22                                                                        brief)
23
24          Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of

25   New York (Carter, J.).

26          UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

27   DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

28          Appellants, businesses operating as the Staten Island Yankees, Norwich Sea Unicorns, and

29   Tri-City ValleyCats, were Minor League Baseball teams affiliated with Major League Baseball

30   (“MLB”) teams.       MLB reorganized the minor leagues in 2020, including by eliminating

31   Appellants’ affiliations with major-league teams.       Appellants sued MLB, alleging that the

32   reorganization constituted a “contract, combination[,] . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or

33   commerce among the several States,” in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 15 U.S.C.

34   § 1.   The district court (Carter, J.) granted MLB’s motion to dismiss, holding that “MLB’s
                                                     2
 1   antitrust exemption[] . . . shields MLB from [Appellants’] lawsuit.”            Special App’x at 2.      We

 2   assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural posture, and the issues on appeal.

 3            In 1922, the Supreme Court held that “‘exhibitions’ of ‘base ball’ d[o] not implicate the

 4   Sherman Act because they d[o] not involve interstate trade or commerce.”                   Nat’l Collegiate

 5   Athletic Ass’n v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141, 2159 (2021) (quoting Fed. Baseball Club of Balt., Inc. v.

 6   Nat’l League of Pro. Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200, 208-09 (1922)).                      This case created

 7   “something . . . like an antitrust exemption for professional baseball,” id., such that “professional

 8   baseball is not subject to the antitrust laws,” Salerno v. Am. League of Pro. Baseball Clubs, 429

 9   F.2d 1003, 1005 (2d Cir. 1970) (Friendly, J.); see also Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258, 282-85 (1972)

10   (declining to overrule baseball’s “exemption from the federal antitrust laws”); Toolson v. N.Y.

11   Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356, 357 (1953) (same). Appellants concede that “these precedents . . .

12   presently immunize MLB” against their claims. Appellants’ Br. at 37. And we must continue

13   to apply Supreme Court precedent unless and until it is overruled by the Supreme Court. See

14   Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Exp., Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989).                  We need go no

15   further. 2

16            For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

17                                                         FOR THE COURT:
18                                                         Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
19

              2
                Although the parties agree that the baseball exemption disposes of this case, they urge us to opine
     on other, non-dispositive issues. We decline their invitations. Cf. United States v. Schultz, 333 F.3d 393,
     407 & n.8 (2d Cir. 2003) (describing “[t]he dangers inherent in a court’s reaching out to decide issues not
     essential to the outcome of the case before it”).

                                                           3