WASHINGTON PRO. BASKETBALL CORP. v. NATL. B. ASS'N, (S.D.N.Y. 1956), S.D.N.Y., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Simpson, Thacher Bartlett, New York City, for defendants National Basketball Ass'n, Maurice Podoloff, Boston Celtics Basketball Club, Inc., Zollner Machine Works, Inc., Minneapolis Basketball, Inc., Madison Square Garden Corp., and Syracuse Professional Basketball Club, Inc. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison, New York City, for plaintiff.

Judges

Sidney Sugarman

Acts

Commerce And Trade — Monopolies And Combinations In Restraint Of Trade — Trusts, Etc., In Restraint Of Trade Illegal; Penalty

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Washington Professional Basketball Corporation filed suit against the National Basketball Association and several associated entities and individuals. The plaintiff alleged it was denied participation in the professional basketball business due to an illegal conspiracy by the defendants. Although the plaintiff never owned a playing team, it claimed to have fulfilled all requirements to acquire the remnants of the defunct Baltimore Bullets but was prevented from completing the acquisition by the defendants' conduct. A prior suit seeking a temporary injunction was denied due to factual disputes concerning whether a binding contract existed between the plaintiff and the relevant parties. This current opinion addresses motions to dismiss the complaint.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the business of professional basketball and the associated interstate broadcasting rights constitute trade or commerce among the states under the Sherman Act.
Whether the plaintiff has standing to sue despite not owning a playing team, based on its efforts to acquire the Baltimore Bullets' remnants and the alleged illegal conspiracy by defendants.
Whether the plaintiff’s complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted under federal antitrust laws, common law tort, and unlawful interference with contract.
Whether the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint and the first claim should be granted or denied.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
United States v. International Boxing Club, 348 U.S. 236, 75 S.Ct. 259, 99 L.Ed. 290	Establishes that professional sports conducted on a multistate basis with associated broadcast rights constitute trade or commerce under the Sherman Act.	Used to support the court’s determination that professional basketball business and broadcasting rights fall under interstate commerce subject to antitrust laws.
Washington Professional Basketball Corporation v. National Basketball Ass'n, 131 F. Supp. 596 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.)	Prior ruling on denial of temporary injunction based on factual dispute over existence of binding contract.	The court clarified that the prior denial did not preclude the plaintiff from having standing or pursuing relief under antitrust laws in the current case.
Strachman v. Palmer, 177 F.2d 427 (1st Cir.)	Confirms the court's jurisdiction to decide all claims including federal and state law claims in cases involving federal questions.	Justified the court’s authority to adjudicate the plaintiff’s federal antitrust and related claims notwithstanding potential adverse federal rulings.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reasoned that the business of professional basketball, combined with the interstate sale of broadcast rights, constitutes trade or commerce among states within the meaning of the Sherman Act. Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true for the purpose of the motions to dismiss, the court found that the plaintiff was denied participation in this business due to an alleged illegal conspiracy by the defendants, thus stating a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court further held that the plaintiff has standing to sue despite not owning a team, based on its efforts to acquire the Baltimore Bullets' remnants and the defendants’ alleged interference. The court distinguished the prior denial of a temporary injunction, noting it was based on factual disputes that do not bar the current claims. Finally, the court asserted jurisdiction over the federal and related state law claims and denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Holding and Implications

The court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint and the first claim.

The decision allows the plaintiff’s antitrust and related claims to proceed to further litigation. It confirms that professional basketball business activities and associated broadcasting rights fall under federal antitrust scrutiny. No new precedent was established beyond affirming the plaintiff’s standing and the applicability of the Sherman Act to the facts alleged.

Show full summary ...

The WASHINGTON PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL CORPORATION, Inc., Plaintiff, v. The NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, Maurice Podoloff, President and Treasurer, National Basketball Association, Boston Celtics Basketball Club, Inc., et al., Defendants.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

The business of professional basketball, as conducted by The National Basketball League and its constituent teams on a multistate basis, coupled with the sale of rights to televise and broadcast the games for interstate transmission, is trade or commerce among the several States within the meaning of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. `The allegations of the complaint which, on these motions to dismiss must be deemed true, that plaintiff was denied participation therein by the defendants' alleged illegal conspiracy, states a claim upon which relief can be granted.

United States v. International Boxing Club, 348 U.S. 236, 75 S.Ct. 259, 99 L.Ed. 290.

Plaintiff has standing to sue. Even though it never actually owned a playing team, the complaint alleges, which must on this motion be accepted as true, that plaintiff did everything required of it to acquire the remnants of the defunct Baltimore Bullets and was prevented from completing that acquisition solely by the defendants' alleged illegal conspiracy complained of. The denial of a temporary injunction in a prior suit was based on "a very definite issue of fact as to whether, in fact, any binding contract was ever entered into" and "the absence of evidentiary proof that such contract was entered into" in the light of the defendants' denial there "that any such contract was entered into". That decision did not hold for all purposes that plaintiff was not a party aggrieved under the anti-trust laws.

Washington Professional Basketball Corporation v. National Basketball Ass'n, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 131 F. Supp. 596.

The complaint seeks damages on a cause of action for an alleged illegal interference by defendants with plaintiff's claimed right to engage in the professional basketball business upon several grounds: federal anti-trust statute; common law tort; unlawful interference with a contract between plaintiff and another. Thus the case is one wherein this court has the right to decide all questions in the case even though it might ultimately decide the federal question adversely to the plaintiff.

Strachman v. Palmer, 1 Cir., 177 F.2d 427.

Motions by defendants National Basketball Association, Podoloff, Madison Square Garden Corp., Inc. and Syracuse Professional Basketball Club, Inc. to dismiss the first claim and by defendants Boston Celtics Basketball Club, Inc., Zollner Machine Works, Inc. and Minneapolis Basketball, Inc. to dismiss the complaint are severally denied.

It is so ordered.

WASHINGTON PRO. BASKETBALL CORP. v. NATL. B. ASS'N, (S.D.N.Y. 1956)