Payne v. Office of the Comm'r of Baseball
| Decision Date | 16 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 15-cv-03229-YGR |
| Parties | GAIL PAYNE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
This action involves a request for injunctive relief requiring increased safety netting and other safety measures at all Major League Baseball ballparks, as well as an individual personal injury claim. Plaintiffs Gail Payne and Stephanie Smith1 assert claims for negligence, fraudulent concealment, and various statutory violations against the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball d/b/a Major League Baseball ("MLB"), its acting Commissioner Robert D. Manfred, Jr., and all thirty MLB teams (the "Clubs"). (Dkt. No. 41, "FAC.")
On April 8, 2016, the Court granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 52) against the non-California-based Clubs for lack of personal jurisdiction, but deferred its ruling on the remainder of the motion to allow for limited jurisdictional discovery and supplemental briefing related to the issue of standing raised therin. (Dkt. No. 69 "April 8 Order.") Specifically, the Court allowed discovery related to the "the probability that a given individual, seated in plaintiffs' specific sections at the two California stadiums in question, [would] be hit by a stray ball or bat in the course of a given game or season." (Id. at 11.) The Court heard oral argument again on August 23, 2016.
Having carefully considered the papers submitted, the record in this case, and the arguments of counsel, and for good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED.2
The Court incorporates the background from the April 8 Order and supplements it as follows. Plaintiffs assert six claims: (1) negligence; (2) fraudulent concealment; (3) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. ("UCL"); (4) violation of California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq. ("CLRA"); (5) violation of California Civil Code § 1668; and (6) personal injury. For Counts 1 through 5, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of the class. Count 6 is plaintiff Smith's personal and individual claim for damages based on negligence, arising from the personal injury that she suffered on June 7, 2015, when hit by a ball at Dodgers Stadium. (FAC ¶ 355.)
A. Relevant Facts
Regarding plaintiff Payne, defendants have produced statistics showing that during the 2014-partial 2016 seasons at the Oakland Coliseum, out of 36,766 total tickets issued in sections 211 and 215, only one injury was reported in those sections, an injury rate of approximately 0.0027%. (Defendants' Supplemental Reply Brief on Standing ("Defendants' Supplemental Reply"), Dkt. No. 90, at 2; Dkt. 91 ("Gorman Decl.") ¶ 9 and Exs. 7-10.) The probability of being hit by a bat or bat fragment was lower, as no such incidents have been reported in the past five seasons. (Gorman Decl. ¶ 10.)
Plaintiffs take issue with the data that defendants have produced, arguing that it is incomplete because the injury reports are under-inclusive in that they do not capture all the foul balls. The Court recognizes that the data likely has limitations (e.g., only reported injuries are included), but cannot ignore its relevance for purposes of standing. Further, plaintiffs offer no alternative theory for addressing the alleged lack of data with respect to the Oakland Coliseum. For their part, plaintiffs contend that "there is no viable method of calculating the risk of being struck by a baseball bat in the two stadiums at issue." (Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing on Standing, Dkt. No. 86, at 6.)
Plaintiff Payne alleges that she experiences fear as a result of the lack of netting at these stadiums. She testified that she "fears for [her] safety" and "feels like [she's] in imminent danger of being hit by a ball" when attending games at the Oakland Coliseum sitting in certain sections of the stadium that are unprotected by netting (i.e., sections 211 and 215) because foul balls sometimes enter those sections. .) Nevertheless, she keeps attending the games and sitting in those sections because she "like[s] the view from [her] seat." (Id. at 42:5-11.) She testified that if nets were extended at Oakland Coliseum, she "would enjoy it a lot because [she spends] time ducking and dodging balls that come into [her section] at every game." (Id. at 50:5-11.) Payne recounted an instance when she might have been hit by a foul ball that came into her section if she had not ducked out of its way. (Id. at 50:13-19.) Notwithstanding her experience, Payne has never been injured at an A's game at the Oakland Coliseum. (Gorman Decl., Ex. 1 ("Payne Depo.") at 41:15-23.) She plans to attend future games at the Coliseum, but cannot say on which dates and has not purchased any tickets yet. (Payne Depo. at 37:20-22, 45:20-25.)
Regarding plaintiff Smith, defendants have produced data showing that, in Field Box 35, where she attended games at the Los Angeles Dodgers stadium, the probability of being hit by a foul ball is 0.018%. (Gorman Decl. ¶ 12 and Exs. 12-15; Defendants' Supplemental Reply at 4.) Of the 27,181 attendees in that box over the 2014-partial 2016 seasons, there were 5 "incidents." "Incidents" reported include both injuries and other events for which a security officer was dispatched. (Id.)
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, point to evidence that during the 2015 season at Dodgers Stadium, 153 fans were struck by baseballs and offered medical treatment. There were 83 home games that year, and therefore an average of almost two individuals were hurt by foul balls at each game. (Patterson Decl., Ex. N; Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing on Standing at 6.)
Plaintiff Smith also testified that she is afraid of attending baseball games, but her fear is grounded in a serious injury she sustained while attending a Dodgers game in June 2015. She has not attended any games in California since that time, turning down invitations due to her fear. (Patterson Decl., Ex. G ("Smith Depo.") at 25:14-26:2; 29:16-30:8; 35:10-21 and Ex. 3.) She does not intend to attend any future games. However, she would consider attending future games if netting were expanded. (Id. at 56:3-24.)
In addition to the injuries that Smith suffered, plaintiffs have provided evidence of severe injuries that other baseball spectators have sustained. For example, the FAC alleges that, as a result of being hit by a foul ball at Boston's Fenway Park in 1998, one woman "required surgery to place eight facial plates into her face, has constant and severe pain in her jaws, eyes, and temples and is permanently injured and will require comprehensive medical therapy for the rest of her life." (FAC ¶ 103.) In July 2008, a "seven-year-old suffered a fractured skull and swelling around the brain after being hit with a baseball at Wrigley Field." (Id. ¶ 109.) In 2009, a four-year-old boy who was hit by a foul ball fell into a coma, sustained injuries to his cerebellum and brain stem, and took three months to speak again. (Id. ¶ 113.) More recently, in August 2015, an article described how Philadelphia Phillies shortstop Freddy Galvis called for MLB to expand foul ball netting after he accidentally hit a young girl in the face with a foul ball, an injury which sent the girl to the hospital.
Taking these allegations as true, as the district court is required to do at this stage, the Court finds that, while rare, the severity of injuries that baseball spectators sustain in the modern era as a result of foul balls is significantly more severe than in the past. (See id. ¶¶ 96-244.) The change is of concern, especially given its impact on children.3
The Court first examines the threshold issue of standing for Counts 1-5 as follows.
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court. A challenge to subject matter jurisdiction "can be either facial, confining the inquiry to allegations in the complaint, or factual, permitting the court to look beyond the complaint." Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000)). In a facial attack, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the allegations of subject matter jurisdiction in the complaint. Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1990). Review is akin to that for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, i.e., all allegations of the complaint are taken as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the plaintiff. Id.
To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must satisfy three elements: (1) "injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized . . . and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical"; (2) causation—"a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of"; and (3) redressability—"it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In the class action context, the named plaintiff must show that she personally has suffered an injury, not just that other members of the putative class suffered the injury. Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial