A federal judge from the Southern District of California has granted Major League Baseball’s motion to dismiss in a case in which an agent and a player he represented, both from Mexico, alleged that Mexican League (League) officials and Major League Baseball (MLB) unfairly prevented the player from signing a contract with the Boston Red Sox.
In so ruling, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to name the League and the team that had the rights to the player, the Red Devils, as parties in the suit.
This violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, which says that the failure to join a party under Rule 19 can lead to dismissal of a suit “where the court cannot obtain jurisdiction over the necessary party and that party is determined to be indispensable to the action.” See Fed. R .Civ. P. 19(a).
The agent in the case was David Gonzalez Camacho. The player was Daniel Pesqueira. The two men filed a lawsuit in the fall of 2012 against MLB, claiming Pesqueira was being tied to the Red Devils and the League by a fraudulent contract.
The plaintiffs did not mince words in their complaint, writing: “The Mexican leagues benefit from this corrupt, self-serving and exclusive relationship because they can force these young, talented and qualified baseball players to sign up with the Mexican teams under obscene and unconscionable commission structures without having to make any capital investment whatsoever towards the training, nurturing, compensation and support of these players. In essence, the Mexican leagues have unfettered opportunity to lock in the Mexican talent without any investment in that talent and without any fear that these Mexican players will look for better financial options and opportunities through the use of more honest and supportive independent agents.
“Young, talented and qualified Mexican baseball players are forced to contract with the Mexican leagues and cannot directly sign with Major or Minor league baseball simply because the Mexican leagues want to exclusively get their fingers into the pie and secure unwarranted, obscene and excessive commissions when these players are sold to Major League Baseball.”
MLB countered by claiming that the lawsuit cannot go forward in a U.S. court because two of the main parties to the dispute are Mexican entities.
In considering the arguments, the court noted that Rule 19 “imposes a three-step inquiry: (1) Is the absent party necessary (i.e., required to be joined if feasible) under Rule 19(a)?; (2) If so, is it feasible to order that absent party to be joined?; and (3) If joinder is not feasible, can the case proceed without the absent party, or is the absent party indispensable such that the action must be dismissed? Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Lee, 672 F.3d 1176, 1179 (9th Cir. 2012).”
The defendants argued that both the Red Devils and the Mexican League “are necessary parties that cannot be feasibly joined to this action because (1) a determination of the validity of Pesqueira’s alleged contracts with the Red Devils is necessary, and (2) joining the parties would vitiate this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and the plaintiffs cannot establish personal jurisdiction over these absent parties in this court.”
The plaintiffs argued ineffectively that “the Red Devils and League are ‘joint tortfeasors’ that are not necessary parties to litigate the claims asserted in this action. The plaintiffs swing for the fences, but ultimately come up short.”
The court continued: “(T)he paramount concern is a Mexican court or another in the United States determining that the Red Devils contracts are valid if this Court finds that they are not, or vice versa. That would produce inconsistent obligations for all of the parties in this action in addition to the Red Devils because operating under one court’s determination would then necessarily cause the parties to breach another court’s determination regarding the same issue, i.e., the validity of the Red Devils contracts. (B)ecause of the risk of inconsistent obligations, the Red Devils are a necessary party to this action.”
David Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Major League Baseball, et al.; S.D. Cal.; Case No. 12-cv-2859-L(BGS); 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179167; 12/19/13
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Stephen V McCue, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of Stephen V McCue, Rancho Santa Fe, CA. (for defendants) Leonard B Simon, LEAD ATTORNEY, The Law Offices of Leonard B. Simon, San Diego, CA; Barry S. Simon, Marcus P. Smith, PRO HAC VICE, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC; John J Buckley, Jr., PRO HAC VICE, Williams and Connolly, Washington, DC.
