MLB hires big hitter for legal battle with San Jose
Front-line combatants have been named in what could be an historic antitrust law suit between the City of San Jose and Major League Baseball regarding the inability of the Oakland A's to move to the South Bay City.
Based on legal scouting reports, this could be the most dynamic sports legal case since another case involving Oakland. That featured former San Francisco Mayor and renowned antitrust lawyer Joe Alioto for the Oakland Raiders vs. the NFL's lead counsel, and future commissioner Paul Tagliabue.
In that historic case, Alioto prevailed, creating the dawn of franchise free agency in the NFL.
Major League Baseball made a statement Wednesday when it announced the hiring of a big hitter -- John W. Keker, a partner in the San Francisco law firm of Keker & Van Nest LLP -- to be lead counsel in the lawsuit filed in federal court by the City of San Jose on June 18.
The MLB statement reminds that Keker specializes in complex antitrust, commercial and intellectual property cases and his most high profile case was as the chief prosecutor in the Iran-Contra trial involving Oliver North in 1989.
San Jose is represented by Philip Gregory of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, who said last month that "The most important thing is for the A's to be able to move if they want" and that there is "no basis to believe that there will be settlement talks before (MLB commissioner Allan Huber "Bud") Selig responds to the complaint."
Based on scouting reports from the Bay Area lawyers familiar with the primary legal combatants, a quick settlement is unlikely.
"It will be a battle of titans for Keker to be going up against Joe Cotchett," one prominent Bay Area lawyer told The Sports Xchange. "Not sure how all of the egos will fit inside the courtroom. "
In the lawsuit, San Jose is suing the MLB over its refusal to allow the A's to relocate from Oakland, in Alameda County, to a location in nearby Santa Clara County. The MLB's position is that the neighboring San Francisco Giants hold territorial rights to the county, thus preventing a move there by the A's. And the MLB's ancient antitrust exemption may also be a key aspect.
Many observers in the legal community believe the A's-Giants territorial issue is a paper-thin position because the deal between the Giants and A's was somewhat of a gentlemen's agreement at the time and can easily be sidestepped.
In its complaint, San Jose contends that prohibiting the move is anticompetitive and should not be allowed. The MLB says it is merely operating under a long-standing exemption from antitrust regulation. The A's are not named in the lawsuit because owner Lewis "Lew" Wolff is in favor of the move.
Professional baseball has operated under a unique exemption from U.S. antitrust law since 1922. The initial exemption was granted by a U.S. Supreme Court decision stating that baseball is not classified as interstate commerce. Although most legal minds consider the underpinnings of that decision to be antiquated, it has managed to stand up to attack thus far.
The San Jose lawsuit argues that MLB's activities certainly involve interstate commerce, which is difficult to deny considering the league's national and global apparel licensing deals. As such, the suit argues, MLB should not be exempt from antitrust laws.
Two well-known cases against the exemption, in 1953 and 1972, did not compel a change, but they were focused mainly on the players' reserve clause and exclusive contractual right of teams over players.
In the 1972 case -- Curt Flood vs. MLB Commissioner Bowie Kuhn -- Flood sued to prevent a trade but lost when the antitrust exemption was upheld in spite of a majority opinion by Justice Harry Blackmun that stated baseball is in interstate commerce and the 1922 exemption was an "aberration."
And now that aberration will once again be the focus of a major league court battle.
