A federal judge has compelled arbitration in a case in which a minor league professional baseball player in the Baltimore Orioles’ organization sued a host of defendants after being struck in the head during a baseball game.
In so ruling, the court found that Jordan Wolf’s contract with the Orioles and, by extension, the leagues, required arbitration to settle disputes. Other defendants, such as Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc. (Rawlings), were also drawn into arbitration, given that the plaintiff’s contract is “intertwined” with the overall dispute.
On April 5, 2008, Jordan Wolf was a catcher for the Delmarva Shorebirds, a minor league affiliate of the Orioles. He claimed that while batting during a game at Perdue Stadium in Maryland and wearing a helmet manufactured by Rawlings, he was struck in the helmet by a baseball pitched in excess of 60 mph. As a result, he alleged that he sustained serious personal injuries, including a skull fracture, seizures and other neurological injuries which have prematurely ended his professional baseball career and caused him to be permanently disabled.
As a result of the alleged accident, he sued, among others, Rawlings, Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Major League Baseball, Minor League Baseball, the Orioles and the Delmarva Shorebirds (the baseball entities). The plaintiff implicated the defendants in the following areas:
1. strict products liability, asserting that Rawlings designed and manufactured the subject defective helmet and that the baseball entities marketed, distributed and placed it into the stream of commerce.
2. negligence, claiming that the defendants knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that the subject helmet would not provide reasonable protection to players exposed to pitches in excess of 60 mph.
3. breach of warranty, stating that the defendants breached their warranties that the subject helmet was fit for the ordinary purposes for which such products are used in professional baseball and was of merchantable quality.
4. assumption of duty against the baseball entities, alleging that they assumed the duty to provide the most current and safest helmets available by requiring that their players wear helmets for safety and providing athletic equipment to their players and breaching a duty by failing to provide helmets to protect their players from pitches thrown in excess of 60 mph.
5. breach of fiduciary duty against the baseball entities, claiming that they failed to provide the most current and protective batting helmets.
6. breach of duty to a third-party beneficiary against Rawlings, asserting that Rawlings breached its agreement with Major League Baseball to provide professional players with the most current and protective batting helmets available.
The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.
Following an initial scheduling conference and the start of discovery, the defendants filed separate motions to compel arbitration.
In considering that motions, the court noted that Wolf and the Baltimore Orioles Limited Partnership signed the “Minor League Uniform Player Contract” on June 12, 2007. Section III of the contract contains an incorporation clause that reads as follows: “The Major Leagues have jointly subscribed to the Major League Agreement (MLA) and the Major League Rules (MLR). The parties agree that they and this Minor League Uniform Player Contract are therefore subject to and governed by the MLA and MLR, which are fully incorporated in this Minor League Uniform Player Contract as if set forth herein verbatim.”
Thus, the court concluded that the plaintiff and the MLB Defendants “agreed to arbitrate their disagreements, and that the broad scope of their agreement encompasses the asserted claims.”
Turning to the question of whether the other defendants were subject to arbitration, the court noted that while they “are not signatories to plaintiff’s Minor League Uniform Player Contract or expressly included within the Major League Constitution, they may nevertheless compel arbitration under the equitable principles of estoppel because plaintiff’s disputes with these defendants are intertwined with plaintiff’s contract. See Ragone v. Atlantic Video, 595 F.3d 115, 126-27 (2d Cir. 2010).”
Jordan Wolf v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, INC. et al.; S.D.N.Y.; 10 Civ. 3713 (JSR), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116294; 10/26/10
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Angela Morcone Giannini, LEAD ATTORNEY, Angela Jennifer Morcone Giannini, Clark, Gagliardi & Miller, P.C., White Plains, NY; John Salvatore Rand, LEAD ATTORNEY, Clark. Gagliardi & Miller, White Plains, NY. (for defendant Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc.) Angela Rosalee Vicari, James D. Herschlein, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Kaye Scholer, LLP, New York, NY. (for defendants Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Major League Baseball Enterprises, Inc., Major League Baseball Properties, Inc.) Larry H. Lum, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York, NY. (for defendants Baltimore Orioles Limited Partnership, Baltimore Orioles, Inc., Delmarva Shorebirds) Gail M. Kelly, Conway, Farrell, Curtin & Kelly, New York, NY; James P. O’Mear, Patrick G. Cullen, PRO HAC VICE, Rollins Smalkin Richards & Mackie LLC, Baltimore, MD. (for National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc. and Minor League Baseball) Marisa Goetz, Matthew Benjamin Stein, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Faust, Goetz, Schenker & Blee LLP, New York, NY.
