National Basketball Ass'n v. Minnesota Professional Basketball, Ltd. Partnership, s. 94-2697
| Decision Date | 14 July 1995 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 94-2697,s. 94-2697 |
| Citation | 56 F.3d 866 |
| Parties | NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION; Atlanta Hawks, Ltd.; Capital Bullets Basketball Club, Inc.; Celtics, Limited Partnership; Charlotte NBA, Limited Partnership; Dallas Basketball, Limited; Denver Nuggets, Limited Partnership; Detroit Pistons Basketball Company; Golden State Warriors; Houston Rockets Professional Basketball Club, Ltd.; Jazz Basketball Investors, Inc.; LAC Basketball Club, Inc.; Los Angeles Lakers, Inc.; Madison Square Garden Corporation; Meadowlands Basketball Associates; Miami Heat, Limited Partnership; Milwaukee Bucks, Inc.; Nationwide Advertising Service, Inc.; Orlando Magic, Ltd.; Pacers Basketball Corporation; The Philadelphia 76ers Basketball Club, Inc.; Phoenix Suns, Limited Partnership; Sacramento Kings, Limited Partnership; San Antonio Spurs, Limited; Seattle Supersonics, Inc.; Trail Blazers, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MINNESOTA PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; Marvin Wolfenson; Harvey Ratner; Defendants-Appellees, Top Rank of Louisiana, Inc.; Defendant-Appellant, Robert Arum; Fred Hofheinz; John O'Quinn; Robert A. Higley; Patrick Graham, Defendants. NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION; Atlanta Hawks, Ltd.; Capital Bullets Basketball Club, Inc.; Celtics, Limited Partnership; Charlotte NBA, Limited Partnership; Dallas Basketball, Limited; Denver Nuggets, Limited Partnership; Detroit Pistons Basketball Company; Golden State Warriors; Houston Rockets Professional Basketball Club, Ltd.; Jazz Basketball Investors, Inc.; LAC Basketball Club, Inc.; Los Angeles Lakers, Inc.; Madison Square Garden Corporation; Meadowlands Basketball Associates; Miami Heat, Limited Partnership; Milwaukee Bucks, Inc.; Nationwide Advertising Service, Inc.; Orlando Magic, Inc.; Pacers Basketball Corporation; The Philadelphia 76ers Basketball Club, Inc.; Phoenix Suns, Limited Partnership; Sacramento Kings, Limited Partnership; San Antonio Spurs, Limited; Seattle Supersonics, Inc.; Trail Blazers, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MINNESOTA PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL, |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Richard Allen Lockridge, argued, Minneapolis, MN (W. Joseph Bruckner and William A. Gengler, on the brief), for appellant.
Patrick J. Schiltz, argued, Minneapolis, MN (James Fitzmaurice, Daniel J. Connolly and Jason D. Topp, Minneapolis, MN, on the brief), for Minnesota Professional Basketball Ltd. Partnership.
Shepard Goldfein, argued, New York City, for Trail Blazers, Inc.
Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Top Rank of Louisiana, Inc. (Top Rank) challenges two district court orders granting preliminary injunctive relief to the National Basketball Association (NBA) in Top Rank's legal dispute with the Minnesota Professional Basketball Limited Partnership (MPBLP) and NBA over ownership and relocation of the Minnesota Timberwolves professional basketball team (Timberwolves). Essentially, the challenged orders keep the Timberwolves in Minnesota for the 1994-95 NBA season, relieve the NBA from enforcement of a state court preliminary injunction barring the season, stay proceedings in state court litigation brought by Top Rank against the MPBLP and NBA, and prohibit the federal court parties from participating in the state court litigation. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
In March 1994, the NBA began the lengthy process of scheduling the 1994-95 NBA season. The NBA needed to finalize the schedule by mid-July so the NBA's member teams could publicize playing dates, sell tickets, arrange radio and television contracts, make travel arrangements, and finish the many other necessary season preparations. On June 5, 1994, over two months into the scheduling process, the MPBLP, owner of the Timberwolves, signed an agreement to sell the Timberwolves to Top Rank. The agreement provided that Top Rank would relocate the team from Minnesota to New Orleans, Louisiana. Because the MPBLP and Timberwolves were members of the NBA, the agreement conditioned the sale and relocation on the NBA Board of Governors' approval.
On June 15, a committee of the NBA Board of Governors met with Top Rank to consider approving the agreement. At the meeting, Top Rank refused to disclose the source of several millions of dollars it planned to use to buy the Timberwolves. Based on the nondisclosure, the committee determined Top Rank's financial support was inadequate and voted to recommend that the NBA's full Board of Governors reject the agreement.
Within hours of the committee's vote, the NBA brought a lawsuit against the MPBLP and Top Rank in federal district court in Minnesota seeking a declaration that NBA permission was required before the Timberwolves could be sold or relocated. Because the NBA's nearly finalized 1994-95 season schedule was based on the Timberwolves' presence in Minnesota, the NBA also asked the court for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction preventing the MPBLP and Top Rank from closing the sale and moving the team without the NBA's approval. In support of its requests, the NBA showed that it was too late in the scheduling process to move the Timberwolves without jeopardizing the upcoming 1994-95 basketball season. On June 16, the court ordered the MPBLP not to close the sale or move the team until the court ruled on the NBA's request for a restraining order.
Nearly a week later, on June 21, the full NBA Board of Governors adopted the committee's recommendation and rejected the agreement. That same day, the MPBLP terminated the agreement and filed a cross-claim against Top Rank in the district court. The MPBLP sought a declaration that it had rightfully terminated the agreement, and breach of contract damages for Top Rank's failure to secure NBA approval as the agreement required. On June 23, the district court temporarily restrained the MPBLP from closing the sale or moving the team until the court considered the NBA's request for a preliminary injunction.
On June 24, Top Rank filed a state court lawsuit against the MPBLP and NBA in Louisiana. Top Rank sought specific performance or damages from the MPBLP for breach of the agreement, and damages from the NBA for interference with the agreement. On June 28, the state court issued a ten-day temporary restraining order preventing the NBA and all its member teams from finalizing the 1994-95 NBA season schedule.
On July 1, the district court granted the NBA's request for preliminary injunctive relief. The district court's order enjoined the MPBLP from selling the team to Top Rank or moving the team to New Orleans until the entry of a court order stating otherwise, the entry of final judgment, or June 15, 1995, whichever occurred first. The district court also enjoined the state court from conducting further proceedings in Top Rank's lawsuit and relieved the NBA from the state court's temporary restraining order, which expired by its own terms on July 8.
Relying on the Anti-Injunction Act, the state court rejected the district court's order and, on July 14, entered its own preliminary injunction preventing the NBA from preparing a schedule for the 1994-95 season. On July 19, the district court enjoined enforcement of the state court's preliminary injunction, barred future orders by the state court, prohibited the parties to the federal action from participating in Top Rank's lawsuit, and outlined stiff contempt sanctions for disobedience. Top Rank appeals both the district court's July 1 and July 19 orders.
We turn first to Top Rank's contention that the district court abused its discretion when the court enjoined the sale and relocation of the Timberwolves. In Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir.1981) (en banc), we identified the equitable factors that govern preliminary injunctions in this Circuit: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the party seeking relief, (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties, (3) the probability that the party seeking relief will succeed on the merits, and (4) the public interest. After considering the Dataphase factors, the district court concluded that the balance of equities tipped in the NBA's favor. We will not reverse a district court's balancing of the Dataphase factors absent a clearly erroneous factual finding, an error of law, or an abuse of discretion. Sanborn Mfg. Co. v. Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co., 997 F.2d 484, 486 (8th Cir.1993).
Top Rank does not challenge the district court's finding that the NBA would suffer irreparable harm unless the Timberwolves remained in Minnesota for the 1994-95 season. Instead, Top Rank contends the district court should not have enjoined the sale to Top Rank without also enjoining the MPBLP from negotiating with other buyers who might move the team and inflict the same harm on the NBA. Although we agree with Top Rank that an injunction absolutely prohibiting the MPBLP from selling the team to any buyer might have provided greater protection to the NBA, the sale to Top Rank was the only threat identified in the NBA's motion, and neither the NBA nor Top Rank ever requested a broader injunction. The district court's failure to order more protection than the parties requested is not an abuse of discretion.
In a related vein, Top Rank complains the district court underestimated the injury that the preliminary injunction would cause Top Rank. Top Rank asserts it has been severely injured because the district court did not prevent the MPBLP from selling the Timberwolves to other buyers. Top...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canady v. Allstate Ins. Co.
... ... See V S ... Page 1013 ... Ltd. P'ship v. HUD, 235 F.3d 1109, 1112 (8th ... See Xiong v. Minnesota, 195 F.3d 424, 426-27 (8th Cir.1999) ( Xiong ) ... Minnesota Prof. Basketball, Ltd. P'ship, 56 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir.1995) ( ... See Nor-West Cable Comm. Partnership v. City of St. Paul, 924 F.2d 741, 746-47 (8th ... ...
-
In re Sac & Fox Tribe of Mississippi Iowa/Meskwaki
... ... closure order from the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission (the "NIGC") and the ... See, e.g., Nat'l Basketball Ass'n v. Minnesota Prof'l Basketball, L.P., 56 ... (10th Cir.2003) (citing Tamiami Partners, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 63 F.3d 1030, ... ...
-
SDDS, Inc., In re
... ... at 1690. See also NBA v. Minnesota Pro. Basketball, Ltd. Partnership, 56 F.3d 866, ... ...
-
Gunderson v. Adm Investor Services, Inc.
... ... a/k/a Asa-Brandt Partnership, Philip Asa, Keith Brandt, Robert Becker, Les ... Otis, Jim Otis, Pitkin Farms, Ltd., Jeff Pitkin, Sandale Farms, Inc., Ronald ... 1996); Shannon, 65 F.3d at 1130; National Basketball Ass'n v. Minnesota Professional ... ...
-
Baker, Bush, and ballot boards: the federalization of election administration.
...v. Beers Constr. Co., 271 F.3d 151,155 (4th Cir. 2001) (discussing reviewable decisions); NBA v. Minn. Prof'l. Basketball, Ltd. P'ship, 56 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir. 1995) (concluding that a preliminary injunction is considered a judgment under the AIA); Henry v. First Nat'l Bank, 595 F.2d 291......