By Jeff Birren, Senior Writer
Charles Oakley was an excellent basketball player. He played college basketball at Virginia Union University and is in the Virginia Sports Hall of Fame. He entered the NBA in 1985 and remained through the 2003-2004 season, playing for the New York Knicks from 1988 until 1998. His post-NBA career has been interesting. In 2011 he sued a Las Vegas casino, claiming that he was assaulted by security guards. History repeated itself. In 2017 Oakley sued his former employer, the Knicks, Madison Square Garden Company, MSG Networks, MSG Sports & Entertainment, and James Dolan, the Executive Chairman of MSG, for a variety of torts after he was expelled from a 2017 Knicks game at Madison Square Garden (“MSG”). He has not had much success in that court.
Game Day
On February 8, 2017 Oakley went to MSG to watch the Knicks play the Los Angeles Clippers, sitting several rows behind Dolan. Three members of MSG security soon “approached him and asked him to leave the arena” (Charles Oakley v. James Dolan et al, U.S.District Court, S.D.N.Y. Case No. 17-cv-6903(RN) (“Oakley”) 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28267, 2020 WL 818920 (2-19-20) at 3). Oakley supposedly asked the guards why this was happening, and one responded by asking why he was “sitting so close to Mr. Dolan” (Id.).
Oakley did not comply with the request to leave but instead returned to his seat. According to Oakley, he was pushed to the ground by two guards, and when he got up, he was pushed to the ground by six guards (Id.). Eventually he was escorted out of MSG and held until police officers arrived. Oakley was then arrested and charged with assault (Id.).
That very evening, the Knicks felt a need to comment on those events. The Knicks’ Twitter account tweeted that Oakley “behaved in a highly inappropriate and abusive manner. He has been ejected and is currently being arrested” by NYPD and “we hope he gets some help soon” (Id. at 3).
The Days After
Those events naturally made the news. The Associated Press reported that “Ex-Knicks big man Charles Oakley arrested after altercation at MSG” (2-8-17). The Knicks felt a need to continue to comment on the previous night’s events. The organization tweeted that “dozens of security staff, employees and NYPD witnessed Oakley’s abusive behavior” and that “[e]verything he has said since the incident is pure fiction” (Oakley at 4). Chairman Dolan added his voice to the chorus the next day. On ESPN radio he said, among many things, that to “me, Charles has got a problem…He has a problem with anger. He’s both physically ad verbally abusive. He may have a problem with alcohol, we don’t know right now.” Dolan continued. “There were security people that were abused. There were service people there who were abused…With racially—with racial overtones, sexual overtones. The stuff you never want to hear.” “It’s very clear that Charles Oakley came to the Garden with an agenda, with a mission in mind” and right from the start “he began with this behavior. Abusive behavior, disrespectful behavior…He did say a bunch of things along the way that looked like he was headed in my direction” (Id.).
This was not good publicity for the NBA. Consequently, on February 13, Dolan, Oakley, and Oakley’s former teammate Michael Jordan, met with NBA Commissioner Adam Silver in an effort to mend bridges and move forward. After the meeting, the NBA released a statement that said that both Dolan and Oakley apologized for the incident, and its negative impact on the Knicks and the NBA. Dolan was also quoted as saying that he hopes Oakley can return to MSG as his guest in the near future (SI wire, “Michael Jordan, Adam Silver mediate Knicks-Oakley dispute” (2-13-17)).
Oakley later agreed to a plea deal such that the criminal charges would be dismissed if Oakley avoided further criminal activity for six months. That happened, and the charges were dropped (TMZ, “Oakley is Officially Off the Hook” (2-20-18)).
Oakley Moves From One Court to Another
On September 12, 2017, just months after the era of good feeling, Oakley filed his Complaint against Dolan and the MSG defendants. It was 21-pages long and his claims included a “denial of a public accommodation in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law, as well as claims for defamation per se, libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, abuse of process and denial of a public accommodation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (Oakley, Complaint). After a judicial conference in January 2018 Oakley agreed to withdraw the Human Rights Law claims and filed an Amended Complaint on 2-9-18 that added another tort claim (Oakley at 5).
On March 5, 2018 the Court granted the defendants’ motion to stay discovery prior to the Court’s ruling on the anticipated motion to dismiss, that was filed on March 30, 2018. Oakley filed his opposition on May 24, 2018 and the defendants replied on June 11, 2018. Oakley later submitted three letters that included additional authorities and facts, and the defendants responded to each one. Oakley also requested that the Court lift the discovery stay but the Court declined to do so (Id.). The Court’s electronic files does not indicate that oral argument was held on the motion to dismiss.
The Court Rules
Preliminary Matters: Judge Richard J. Sullivan, a member of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, handled the various motions. The Court began its analysis by stating the usual rules that apply when ruling on a ruling to dismiss in Federal Court, so although the court must accept as true the complaint’s factual allegations, “a pleading that offers only ‘labels and conclusions” or a mere “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” are insufficient (Id.). It then turned to the defendants’ request to consider extrinsic evidence that was outside of the Amended Complaint. The defendants claimed that the proffered evidence was “highly relevant” and came from a variety of sources (Id. at 6). The Court went through each one.
The first such item was video footage of the actual incident. The Court declined to accept that video for several reasons, including the fact that Oakley did not incorporate it into his Amended Complaint, that the video did not “represent facts that are generally well known within this Court’s jurisdiction and because the videos had not been authenticated (Id.).
Next was video footage of a television interview of Dolan on 2-10-18. Those statements were expressly referenced in the Amended Complaint and this the Court was “free to consider the video” (Id. at 7). Then came the criminal complaint related to the game, part of Oakley’s plea bargain in the case and pleadings filed by Oakley in prior civil cases. The Court declined to consider these materials, in part because Oakley had not relied upon them in his Amended Complaint (Id.). Finally, the Court also declined to consider various internet materials related to Oakley, in part because Oakley had not relied upon them, in part because they had not been properly authenticated and because the materials did not show an inconsistency with the Amended Complaint.
The Motion to Dismiss:
Defamation: Only at the bottom of page seven did the Court turn to the merits of the motion. It began by looking at the claims related to defamation, and specifically, the allegations that the defendants had defamed Oakley by accusing him of assaulting MSG employees and being an alcoholic. The allegations were based on public statements immediately after the incident at MSG and over the following two days. The Court disagreed with his assertions. For one thing, “the statements Oakley identifies neither expressly accuse nor imply that Oakley committed assault” (Id. at 8). The defendants “never accused Oakley of causing physical injury to anyone” and their statements that he was “abusive” and was ejected and arrested by “NYPD do not give rise to the implication that Oakley committed assault” (Id. at 8/9). Moreover, those statements “constitute nonactionable statements of opinion” (Id. at 9). Thus, Oakley “failed to allege that Defendants’ statements are defamatory statements of fact concerning him” (Id.).
Furthermore, the Court found that Oakley was a public figure for libel claims and thus had to prove actual malice to prevail (Id. at 10). Actual malice must be proven “by clear and convincing evidence” (Id.). The Court determined that Oakley had failed to satisfy this requirement but had merely offered “conclusory allegations” except for a single statement that Dolan “harbored general animosity towards Oakley” but this did not establish actual malice.
The Court also found that Oakley had failed to prove that the “allegedly false accusations of assault and/or abusive conduct caused him to suffer special damages or were per se actionable” (Id.). Indeed, Oakley had not “alleged that he suffered special damages” as a result of those statements (Id.). The statements failed to satisfy the requirements of “per se actionability” as they did not charge Oakley with a serious crime that tended to injure him in his trade, business or profession, nor did it say that he had a loathsome disease nor did it input unchastity to a woman (Id. at 11). Saying that Oakley was “abusive” did not satisfy the standard.
Oakley contended that the defendants defamed him by accusing him of being an alcoholic. Yet Oakley failed to plead actual malice, nor did he plead special damages related to that claim (Id.). Furthermore, the alleged statements “can only be construed as general reflections upon Oakley’s character or qualities, not as specific statements regarding his purported trade, business or profession” and the “allegedly defamatory statements include no reference to Oakley’s business or profession, and merely reference Oakley himself” (Id. at 12). He even failed to “specify what Oakley’s trade, business, or profession is” (Id.). His opposition says that he derived significant income from appearances at drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers but the “Complaint is silent on that point.” Since this was not alleged as to his business or profession, “he has not established per se actionability” (Id.).
Oakley claimed that the purported statement accused him of “suffering from the loathsome disease of alcoholism” but this contention failed “because New York law does not consider alcoholism to be a loathsome disease, and therefore Oakley does not plead per se actionability on this basis” (Id.). Since “Oakley has neither sufficiently pleaded special damages nor per se actionability for Defendants’ statements allegedly accusing him of being an alcoholic” that defamation claim “must be dismissed” (Id. at 13).
Assault and Battery: The Court then dealt with Oakley’s claims that the MSG defendants committed assault and battery when they “physically and forcibly removed [him] from the Garden and subsequently detained him until the police could arrive and unjustifiably arrest him” (Id.). Oakley insisted the defendants “greatly exceeded the amount of force that was necessary in the situation” (Id. at 14). The Court was not impressed. “Oakley grossly misunderstands the law concerning a landlord’s right to remove a trespasser from its property. The law is clear that the MSG Defendants had the right to expel Oakley from the Garden and that his refusal to leave justified their use of reasonable fore to remove him” (Id.).
A ticket is a revocable license and once that license has been revoked, the ticket holder who remains on the premises “becomes a trespasser” and can be “removed by the use of force if necessary” (Id.). Oakley may have thought that he was free to “negotiate” with the Garden employees, and he also may have believed that he could only be ejected with force if he first engaged in physical force but neither proposition is the law. “Were Oakley’s version of property rights accurate, property owners would be powerless to remove trespassers” (Id.). Oakley’s colorful allegations do not state that the was thrown to the ground before “he refused to comply with the security guards’ directive that he leave the Garden. Indeed, Oakley never alleges that he attempted to comply” with that directive (Id.). Oakley’s “admitted refusal to comply is what justified their use of force” (Id.).
Oakley also failed to claim that the guards “intended to injure him” nor do any of his allegations “support an inference of excessive or unreasonable force” (Id.). There are no allegations that he was gratuitously punched or kicked, nor that the physical contact was unnecessary or malicious. In fact, “Oakley does not allege that the guards did anything more than restrain him” and his allegations that they refused his requests to stand up “could hardly be described as unreasonable given that Oakley never suggested that he was prepared to comply with the guards’ request that he leave the arena” (Id. at 15).
Oakley did not allege that the force used was unreasonable, merely that any “use of force was unreasonable, because it was unreasonable to ask him to leave in the first place” (Id.). In “Oakley’s telling, the security guards had only one choice when he declined their request that he leave the Garden: to let him return to is seat to watch the game. This is not the law” (Id.). Since “Oakley has not alleged any facts to suggest that the guards’ use of force was excessive or beyond what was necessary to remove him from the premises, his assault and battery claims must be dismissed” (Id.).
False Imprisonment: Next up were the allegations that the MSG Defendants committed false imprisonment by removing him from MSG and confining him until the police arrived. This, too, failed because the defendants “were within their rights to revoke Oakley’s license to be on the premises and eject him” (Id.). Moreover, it was NYPD, and not the MSG defendants, that arrested him, so the Court granted the motion to dismiss the false imprisonment claims.
Abuse of Process: Oakley’s last tort claim was for abuse of process committed by the defendants when they took the steps that led to the criminal charges (Id.). The Court determined the claim “must be dismissed because he does not sufficiently plead special damages caused by the Defendants’ alleged abuse of process” (Id. at 16). The only special damages that had been pled, sufficient or not, related to the claims that the defendants’ statements accused “him of being an alcoholic, not from any abuse of process” and thus the omission is “fatal to his claim” (Id.). With that the first-year tort class ended, and the Court turned its attention to a more novel claim.
Denial of a Public Accommodation: Oakley’s last claims, “in the alternative” were that the defendants discriminated against him under both the ADA and the similar New York State Law, not because he had a disability, but rather denied him “access to the Garden based on their perception that he suffers from alcoholism, a disability” (Id.). Alcoholism is a disability under both of the above laws, but that did not solve Oakley’s pleading problem. The Amended Complaint in fact “does not plead any fact that supports a plausible inference that Defendants discriminated against Oakley on the basis of his purported alcoholism” (Id.). Rather, he merely pled this happened “based on the Defendants’ alleged perception that he suffers from alcoholism” and that the defendants believed he “was an alcoholic” (Id.).
Oakley pointed to three statements allegedly made by Dolan after the event that Oakley had been drinking that evening. But none of the cited statements “either in isolation or collectively, suffices to support an inference that Defendants had a perception that Oakley suffers from alcoholism or that they discriminated against him on that basis” (Id.). The Court cited cases that draw a sharp distinction between a person being an alcoholic and merely being drunk in public on a particular occasion. Dolan’s purported statements dealt with Oakley’s behavior that night, and that people who show up drunk will be ejected. The focus was thus on Oakley’s behavior that specific evening, and the Amended Complaint asserts “that Dolan knew that Oakley was not an alcoholic” (Id. at 17) (emphasis in the original). The Amended Complaint “abjectly fails to allege for discrimination under the ADA or NYSHRL” (Id.).
Oakley Requested Leave to Amend: This last gasp effort to avoid defeat also failed. The request came “in a footnote to the final sentence of his opposition…without any legal or other support” (Id.). It “offers not basis for his request for leave to amend nor does he attach a proposed amended complaint and once before Oakley had been given permission to file an amended complaint (Id.). Finally, Oakley did “not even attempted to explain why an additional opportunity to amend would cure the Amended Complaint’s deficiencies” (Id. at 18). The Clerk of the Court was “directed” “to close this case” (Id.).
And Then
MSG immediately put out a short statement. “We thank the court for its ruling. This was an incident that no one was happy about. Maybe now there can be peace between us” (newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/charles-oakley-lawsuit, 2-19-20). Oakley’s response was to file his notice of appeal the very next day (Oakley, Document 70, 2-20-20). With courts shut down due to the coronavirus, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals quickly ordered the parties to participate in a telephonic mediation of March 31, 2020, beginning at 10AM. “Counsel must attend with clients” along with any relevant insurance companies and “3 hours must be allocated” (Oakley, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Order Number 20-642 ( 3-17-20)). However, Dolan has now tested positive for the coronavirus and is “self-isolating” (ESPN, Malika Andrews, “Knicks Owner James Dolan Tests Positive for Coronavirus” (3-28-20)) so that date is likely to be pushed back.
Final Thoughts
Just weeks ago, the Knicks got into another feud with one of their most famous fans, Spike Lee. Lee has been a Knicks’ season ticket holder for many years and claims to have always used a specific entrance door. In early March 2020 he was directed to use another entrance that was several blocks away. Lee immediately made the connection to Oakley, shouting “Do you want to arrest me like Charles Oakley?” Lee also announced that he would not attend another Knicks game this season. This gave Oakley another chance to criticize Dolan, saying it is “a plantation over there. It’s bad” (theguardian.com/3-4-20/spike-lee).
At the time the NBA suspended games in March 2020, the Knicks had a winning percentage of .318 and only three teams in the Eastern Conference had a worse record. Assuming Dolan was correct that Oakley “did say a bunch of things along the way that looked like he was headed in my direction” and that this was loud and “that he was using my name” (Oakley at 4), it is still true that sports club ownership may not be the place for those with thin skin, especially in New York.
Furthermore, although the District Court did not view the video footage of the Oakley incident, that video quickly went on the internet for all to see. In view of all of the bad blood involved, it seems unlikely that this case, and the underlying animosity, will be going away any time soon. Dolan and the Knicks have to date prevailed in the law courts, but these events must have hurt them in the court of public opinion.
Birren is the former general counsel of the Oakland Raiders and is an adjunct professor of law at Southwestern.
