By Jeff Birren
What a federal court judge wants, a federal court judge typically gets, at least in Aaron Senne et al. v MLB et al., a 2014 lawsuit involving alleged wages and hours law violations.
The aforementioned plaintiffs filed a Proposed Second Amended Complaint and Supplemental Brief in Opposition to the pending Motion to Dismiss on March 16, 2015. The defendants also filed a Supplemental Brief.
The court ruled two months later. On the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, it went club-by-club and examined what evidence existed, if any, that supported a claim of California jurisdiction over the “personal jurisdiction clubs that were moving for dismissal,” but not before spending over 30 pages summarizing the parties’ arguments. The court found that there was no general jurisdiction over those clubs and then analyzed whether there was “specific jurisdiction.”
This meant finding both “purposeful availment” and “purposeful direction.” It noted that wage and hour claims are neither tort or contract claims and that it had “found no case law that suggests that wage and hour claims may not be addressed under the purposeful availment approach and further finds that many of the facts here lend themselves to the contract analysis” (Senne Order Re Motions to Dismiss and Motions to Transfer, May 18, 2015 at 48/49.).
The first prong involved analyzing who had initiated the negotiations, whether it reached out to the plaintiff in the respective forum, California in Senne, and whether the contract contemplated a continuing business obligation.
The second prong, purposeful direction, has a three-part test. The defendants allegedly 1) committed an intentional act, 2) expressly aimed at the forum stated and 3) caused harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state (Id. at 52). The moving defendants conceded numbers one and three but contested the second part of the test. Having completed its general legal analysis, the club-by-club analysis begins at page 58.
The court concluded that there was purposeful availment, but not purposeful direction, over the Atlanta Braves, Chicago White Sox, Tamp Bay Rays, Washington Nationals, Philadelphia Phillies, Boston Red Sox, Baltimore Orioles, and Cleveland Indians. The court further found that there was sufficient purposeful availment and purposeful direction to overrule the motion to dismiss as to the Pittsburgh Pirates, Detroit Tigers and New York Yankees.
It then analyzed whether the claims “arise out of or relates to” the defendants’ contacts with the forum, and employed a “but for test.” It reviewed the California recruiting and scouting efforts by the three clubs, as well as the contractual relationships with named plaintiffs and whether the claims were sufficiently pled. The court concluded its analysis by finding that the “arising out requirement is satisfied as to the” Pirates, Tigers and Yankees (Id. at 79.).
The court then spent two and a half pages analyzing the reasonableness of the jurisdiction over those same three clubs. It set out a seven-part test and concluded that each factor was either neutral or favored jurisdiction. As a result, after 81 pages, seven of the ten moving clubs were dismissed without prejudice and three of the moving defendants remain in the case.
On page 82, the court turned to the motion to transfer. Once again the court laid out the parties arguments in fulsome detail, so that its analysis begins on page 100. Consistent with statements made at oral argument, the court denied the motion to transfer.
The court determined that the plaintiffs had not engaged in forum shopping and asserted California claims such that the plaintiffs’ choice of forum was at least entitled to some deference. It also found that “neither of the two fora is significantly more convenient to the parties and witnesses than the other; nor will the costs of litigation be significantly higher in either forum” (Id. at 103). Thus, the location of the parties and litigations costs did not favor transfer. The court also determined the defendants had to show that “access to evidence” favored transfer.
The court then summarily stated that the interest of the two states — California and Florida — was neutral, that a federal court in California was slightly more familiar with California wage and hour laws, that transfer would result in some delay, and that as a result of the above, denied the motion to transfer. The war rages on: stay tuned.
Birren worked for the LA/Oakland Raiders for 34 seasons and was general counsel for much of that time. During that time he worked closely with owner Al Davis and Amy Trask, the NFL’s first female Club Chief Executive. He has an MA in History from USC and a JD from Southwestern, where he taught sports law for three years. He can be reached at jebirren@comcast.net.
