Oakland Sues the Raiders, NFL, and 31 Other Clubs Over Team's Vegas Getaway
What happens in Vegas leads to a lawsuit, which is claiming that the $378 million “relocation fee” the Raiders paid the league acted as “supra-competitive cartel payments” to owners of other teams.
December 11, 2018 at 05:50 PM
2 minute read
The City of Oakland has sued the Oakland Raiders, the National Football League and its remaining 31 teams, claiming that they've conspired to “boycott” the city in favor of moving to Las Vegas in violation of the antitrust laws and in breach of the league's own relocation policies.
According to the lawsuit, filed by attorneys in the City Attorney's office, Berg & Androphy and Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, the $378 million “relocation fee” that the Raiders paid acted as “supra-competitive cartel payments” to the league's other team owners. The lawsuit claims that the league and its teams ignored their own policy of making relocation decisions based on each club's obligation to “advance the interest of the League in its home territory.”
“Defendants openly ignored those Policies and approved the Raiders' relocation not because of some perceived lack of support by Oakland – or some concern about what Oakland was willing to pay or not pay toward a new or renovated stadium – but because of the supra-competitive payment Defendants coerced from Las Vegas which they would individually pocket by supporting the move,” the city's lawyers wrote. “This is a case of leveraging of monopoly power, resulting in an anticompetitive wealth transfer from municipalities to private business, in violation of the antitrust laws.”
Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker said in a press release announcing the lawsuit that the “move lines the pockets of NFL owners and sticks Oakland, its residents, taxpayers and dedicated fans with the bill.”
“The purpose of this lawsuit is to hold the defendants accountable and help to compensate Oakland for the damages the defendants' unlawful actions have caused and will cause to the people of Oakland,” she said.
Representatives of the league and the team didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
Read the complaint:
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Court rejects request to sideline San Jose State volleyball player on grounds she’s transgender
4 minute read
Stock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
Trending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
