Oakland Raiders v. National Football League
| Decision Date | 23 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. B163115.,B163115. |
| Citation | 126 Cal.App.4th 1497,25 Cal.Rptr.3d 141 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE OAKLAND RAIDERS, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant; Paul Tagliabue et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Kaye Scholer, Larry R. Feldman, Robert M. Turner, Los Angeles; Arnold & Porter, John J. Quinn, Los Angeles, Laurence J. Hutt, Los Angeles; and Jeffrey E. Birren, Alameda, for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant The Oakland Raiders.
Covington & Burling, Gregg H. Levy; Ruby & Schofield, Allen J. Ruby, San Jose; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Douglas B. Adler, Los Angeles, for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant National Football League and for Defendants and Respondents Paul Tagliabue and Neil Austrian.
Defendant, cross-complainant and appellant the National Football League (NFL) appeals from an order granting a new trial following a six-week jury trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the NFL on the Raiders' claims involving their move to Oakland, and the trial court granted a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct. Plaintiff, cross-defendant and appellant the Oakland Raiders (Raiders) cross-appeal from a pretrial order granting summary adjudication in favor of individual defendants and respondents Paul Tagliabue (the NFL commissioner) and Neil Austrian (the NFL president) on the Raiders' cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. The Raiders also appeal from a statement of decision following a bench trial on the Raiders' declaratory relief cause of action.
We reverse the order granting a new trial and affirm the judgment in all other respects. Because the order granting a new trial failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 657 by omitting a statement of reasons, we have independently reviewed the grounds asserted in the motion. We conclude that neither the conflicting evidence of juror misconduct nor any asserted instructional error justifies a new trial. As to the cross-appeal, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that, as a matter of law, there is no fiduciary relationship between NFL officials and the Raiders, and that substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the NFL was not estopped to rely on the NFL constitution's revenue sharing requirements.
The Raiders are a member club of the NFL, an unincorporated association governed by the NFL constitution and bylaws. After the Raiders relocated to Los Angeles from Oakland in 1982, they played their home games at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum until 1995. Unlike newer stadiums, the Coliseum did not permit any revenue to be derived from items such as luxury suites, club seats, naming rights or other sponsorships.
Throughout the end of 1994 and the first half of 1995, the Raiders negotiated with individuals representing Hollywood Park for the construction of a new, state-of-the-art stadium in Inglewood, reaching an agreement in principle in March 1995. That agreement required the Raiders to secure from the NFL a contribution in the amount of $20 million and a commitment that at least two Super Bowls would be played in the stadium between 2000 and 2004. The NFL offered to support construction of the Hollywood Park stadium, though not to the extent sought by the Raiders. It agreed to schedule one Super Bowl during the requested time period, to provide the Raiders with a certain number of Super Bowl tickets and to invest some money into the project. It further agreed to provide additional assistance on the condition that a second NFL team be permitted to play at the stadium for several years.
Ultimately, the NFL memorialized its commitment at a meeting in May 1995, where it adopted 1995 Resolution FC-7 which, among other things, awarded two Super Bowls to the Hollywood Park stadium conditioned on two NFL teams playing there, and created a committee to negotiate with both the Raiders and Hollywood Park concerning a second NFL team.1 The Raiders voted in favor of Resolution FC-7, though they remained opposed to the notion of a second team playing at the Hollywood Park stadium.
The committee created by Resolution FC-7 developed terms for the provision of a second NFL team that were inconsistent with the Raiders' goals and that the Raiders perceived as favoring the second team. As a result, the Raiders — who had simultaneously been negotiating with Oakland officials to relocate the team there — entered into an agreement with Oakland in June 1995 to move to the renovated Oakland Coliseum. The agreement included an up-front $64 million payment to the Raiders, immediately enhanced revenue streams and assurances from Oakland officials that personal seat licenses and game tickets were already sold out.
In July 1995, the NFL adopted 1995 Resolution G-7, approving the Raiders' relocation to Oakland and reaffirming that "the League's member clubs collectively own and will control any League franchise opportunity in the greater Los Angeles area...."
In March 1999, the Raiders filed a complaint for damages against the NFL and myriad other defendants, alleging eleven causes of action: Breach of contract (first, seventh and eighth causes of action); breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (second, sixth and tenth causes of action); unjust enrichment (third cause of action); tortious interference with prospective business advantage (fourth cause of action); breach of fiduciary duty (fifth cause of action); declaratory relief (ninth cause of action); and civil conspiracy (eleventh cause of action).2 The NFL, in turn, answered and filed a cross-complaint for declaratory relief against the Raiders.
In August 2000, the trial court granted the NFL's motions for summary adjudication on the fourth, seventh, eighth and tenth causes of action, and denied its summary adjudication motions on the third, fifth and sixth causes of action. The court also granted summary adjudication motions brought by individual defendants Mr. Tagliabue and Mr. Austrian on the fourth through seventh, tenth and eleventh causes of action.
The trial began on March 13, 2001 and lasted approximately six weeks. The jury heard testimony and received documentary evidence on five causes of action. The first through third causes of action involved the Raiders' claim that, by moving to Oakland, they left the NFL with an "opportunity" to put another team in Los Angeles and that the NFL's constitution and bylaws implicitly required that the Raiders be compensated for providing the NFL with that opportunity (sometimes referred to as the "Los Angeles opportunity"). The fifth and sixth causes of action addressed the NFL's failure to offer the Raiders more support with the development of the Hollywood Park stadium.
The jury deliberated for 15 days, though it began deliberations anew on the fifth day after one juror was excused due to a scheduling conflict. During the deliberations, the jurors asked several specific questions about the evidence and instructions. On May 21, 2001, the jury returned a 9 to 3 verdict in favor of the NFL.
Following a subsequent bench trial, the trial court entered its statement of decision on the ninth cause of action on June 3, 2002. It denied the Raiders' request for a declaration that they were not required to share certain stadium revenues, because the NFL constitution and bylaws obligated the Raiders to share and the NFL had not modified or waived the sharing requirement.
On July 26, 2002, the trial court entered judgment on all matters tried before the jury and the court.
Also on July 26, 2002, the Raiders filed their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion for new trial. The Raiders premised their new trial motion on grounds of juror misconduct, erroneous jury instructions, erroneous admission of evidence and insufficiency of evidence.
With respect to juror misconduct, the Raiders asserted that one juror, Mr. Abiog, harbored a bias against the Raiders and concealed that bias during voir dire. They further asserted that another juror, attorney Ms. Hillman, had an unconcealed, preexisting bias against the Raiders, infected the deliberations with her own view of the law, and engaged in private deliberations with another juror. They also suggested that a third juror, Ms. Paulino, had difficulty understanding English.
To demonstrate this misconduct, the Raiders submitted five juror declarations, as well as declarations of counsel averring that counsel were unaware of any jury misconduct occurring during the trial or deliberations. According to the juror declarations, Mr. Abiog stated several times during deliberations that he hated the Raiders and their owner, Al Davis, and that he would never award any money to the Raiders or find for them in this case. One juror confronted Mr. Abiog, telling him that it was improper for him to make such a statement and that he had a duty to disclose in his juror questionnaire his hostility toward the Raiders. Mr. Abiog responded that the questionnaire had only asked what his favorite team was and did not ask whether he disliked the Raiders. Two other jurors, including the jury foreman, told Mr. Abiog that concealing his bias against the Raiders could cause a mistrial.
With respect to Ms. Hillman, the declarations stated that she "exercised an unofficial leadership position," dominated the deliberations and instructed the jurors on the law. One example of Ms. Hillman's dominance repeated throughout the declarations was that she "told the jury that if they voted one way on one of the claims, they had to vote the same way on another claim, because `that was the law.'"...
To continue reading
Request your trial