for allegedly making inflammatory statements against the rooftoppers at a
Cubs convention. Recall, many rooftop businesses have sued the city for violating due process
and the landmark ordinance in approving the 7 signs and new scoreboards.
Now, Crain's reports today that several rooftops sued the Cubs for breach of
contract, including the provision in the settlement against disparaging remarks
by either side, so there may be a construction injunction in offing soon, as well
as some triple damages federal claims to hit the Cubs in the wallet:
Crain's reports that two rooftop businesses overlooking Wrigley Field sued the Chicago Cubs and owner Ricketts in federal court, accusing them of attempted monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act, as well as breach of contract, defamation, consumer fraud and deceptive practices.
The lawsuit is the latest legal skirmish in a long-running battle between the Ricketts family, which plans major renovations to the historic ballpark and the surrounding neighborhood, and owners of nearby buildings who believe plans to erect advertising signs will unlawfully obstruct their views. It is the second recent lawsuit to allege the Cubs are shifting planned outfield signs to block the views of rooftops that refuse to sell their properties to the Ricketts family.
The present contractual agreement states that the Cubs are prevented from erecting "windscreens or other barriers to obstruct the views of the rooftops," the copy of one contract reads. In return, rooftops businesses pay the team 17 percent of their pre-tax revenues. The Cubs argue that the outfield signs constitute an "expansion" of Wrigley Field that is allowed under the terms of rooftop contracts.
The new suit by the right field rooftoppers seeks an injunction to block the Cubs' most recent plan for signage, as well as unspecified monetary damages. The rooftop owners argue that their 20 year 2004 settlement agreement requires an unobstructed view of Wrigley as part of the revenue sharing deal. Now, the owners believe that the Ricketts are using the new signage to destroy their businesses, and burn down the value of their businesses while trying to buy up the properties around
Wrigley. In other words, the Ricketts are attempting to bully the rooftop owners into selling their properties at fire sale prices. Ricketts family just concluded purchasing several properties with rooftops.
“The Cubs decided to put up giant signs to block the rooftops halfway into a 20-year contract to guarantee the rooftops' unobstructed views,” the rooftop owners attorney said in a statement. “The Cubs are blocking the rooftops that refused to sell their properties for a fraction of market value, and who refused to participate in a price-fixing scheme the Cubs demanded to raise ticket prices. It's unfortunate the rooftops have been forced to take legal action, but they're confident the legal system will protect their rights.”
But the boiling point has come recently with Ricketts actions. Crain's reports the plaintiffs accuse the Cubs of anti-competitive conduct, as well as defaming the rooftop owners by accusing them of stealing the Cubs' product. The rooftop plaintiffs allege that after the Cubs announced their seven-sign plan, they met with Crane Kenney in July 2014 and offered to sell the rooftops at fair market value, according to the complaint. In offering a much smaller figure, Kenney told McCarthy “once we put up the signs, you don't have a rooftop business,” according to the complaint.
The complaint said that in offering a “grossly unfair” price, Kenney asked the rooftop owners: “How hard is it going to be to sell tickets when you have no glimpse of Wrigley Field?” Kenney added, according to the complaint: “Whatever (rooftop businesses) we don't buy, we're going to block.”
The complaint also references a statement by Tom Ricketts at the 2014 Cubs Convention, which the owners believe was defamatory.
“So you're sitting in your living room watching, say, Showtime. All right, you're watching 'Homeland.' You pay for that channel, and then you notice your neighbor looking through your window watching 'Homeland.'" Ricketts told fans, according to the complaint. "And then you turn around, and they're charging the other neighbors to sit in the yard and watch your television. So then you get up to close the shades, and the city makes you open them. That's basically what happened.”
For the past two years, the Cubs and the rooftop business owners have been fighting over the team's plan to put up signage above the Wrigley Field bleachers as part of a $375 million ballpark renovation. The Cubs have been fast and loose with specifics in their rebuilding plans, signage and the changing verbage of their projects. The Cubs said that no public money would be involved, but after approval it was reported that the Cubs are seeking a $75 million federal tax credit for "landmark" rehabilitation costs. However, the new bleachers and electronic scoreboard and advertising signage are not historic preservation but new, modern improvements that defeat the notion that Wrigley is still a historic landmark. But the Cubs want to make these massive changes, then get a new "landmark" status with the changes, in order to collect the $75 million in public tax breaks.
Now baseball has had a long standing exemption to federal Anti-Trust rules, based on a Supreme Court opinion that stated that baseball was not in "interstate commerce," so the Sherman Act does not apply. However, the same act has been applied to all other various professional sports. The Supreme Court has reasoned that since Congress did not amend the law to reverse its past decision, that decision stands as the lone sports exemption to federal anti-trust law. Many other courts have taken exception to the exemption - - - trying to limit it to the old reserve clause. However, MLB won a ruling recently allowing it to block the move of the A's to San Jose from Oakland. But that decision could have easily been based on the league charter and rules rather than approved by an anti-trust exemption.
A pleading in federal court filed without a justifiable basis can lead to sanctions. The plaintiffs counsel must have various arguments to counter the blanket anti-trust exemption defense, considering that Wrigley Field itself is owned by a separate legal entity than the baseball franchise. But common ownership and affiliation may mute that argument. But the strongest position may be the simplest: the anti-trust exemption solely deals with internal baseball operations and decisions, not matters dealing with the public or third parties (such as rooftops).
With the announcement that the bleachers will not be ready until late May, 2015, season ticket holders were only given 10 days to decide what to do with their tickets: exchange them, get a refund or if they missed the deadline, the Cubs would hold their money "on credit" for future game purchases. In other words, the Cubs don't want to give back the cash, but bait and switch bleacher seats for unused grandstand seats for April and May contests.
But there still is another open issue with the delayed bleacher completion. The historic brick walls are just supported by 2 x 4s. It is doubtful that the walls have the structural integrity if a ball player hits it while trying to make a catch. Also, since this is still an active construction site, the city could red tag the area as being unsuitable to the public or players. This is like the ill-planned Northwestern football game when the Big Ten officials called the field unplayable because it was configured with too small end zones ending in the brick walls. (The game was played on in one direction).
But nothing seems to matter to the Cubs organization except to bulldoze ahead with their various plans.
