Payne v. Office of the Comm'r of Baseball

• Decision Date: 08 April 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

GAIL PAYNE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, ET AL., Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03229-YGR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

April 8, 2016

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 52

In their First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 41 ("FAC")), plaintiffs Gail Payne, Robert Gorman, and Stephanie Smith 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"),¹ its acting Commissioner Robert D. Manfred, Jr., and all thirty MLB teams (the "Clubs").² Plaintiffs primarily seek injunctive relief requiring increased safety netting at all MLB ballparks, spanning "from foul pole to foul pole." (FAC ¶ 332.)

Defendants now move to dismiss the case, asserting plaintiffs lack standing, challenging the Court's personal jurisdiction over the Out-of-State Clubs, arguing venue is not proper in thisDistrict as to certain defendants, and asserting plaintiffs fail to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 52.)³

The Court heard oral argument on March 22, 2016. Thereafter, the Court ordered, and the parties filed, supplemental briefs addressing whether limited jurisdictional discovery on the issue of standing is warranted. (Dkt. Nos. 63, 67-68.) Having carefully considered the papers submitted,⁴ the record in this case, and the arguments of counsel, and good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED IN PART insofar as it seeks dismissal of claims asserted against the Out-of-State Clubs for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court orders limited jurisdictional discovery on the issue of standing as noted below and defers ruling on the remainder of the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are three individuals—Payne, Gorman, and Smith—who have previously attended baseball games, "one of the greatest pastimes in the history of American sport." (FAC ¶¶ 3, 17, 20-21, 24.)⁵ They allege defendants "have failed to adequately protect spectators through their failure to enact and enforce adequate safety measures." (Id. ¶ 9.)

According to plaintiffs, the risk of broken bats has increased in baseball's modern era as a result of the switch from ash to maple bats, which tend to "explode" upon shattering, sending "multiple shrapnel-like pieces in indiscriminate directions." (Id. ¶ 93.) Plaintiffs claim the "power game of baseball has created a modern-day slaughter pen." (Id. ¶ 96.) The complaint is replete with graphic descriptions and photographs of seriously injured participants or spectators,who were hit with balls or splintered bats, over the prior decades. (Id. ¶¶ 95-244.) Four of these injuries—in 1943, 1960, 1970, and 2010—resulted in death, including the deaths of two children. (Id. ¶¶ 97-101.) Certain players and commentators "have begun to question MLB's inaction and demand increased protection for fans." (Id. ¶ 5.) For instance, Justin Verlander with the Detroit Tigers released a statement that "[m]ore protective measures need to be put in place in all ball parks" because "[p]layers are sick of seeing injuries that could easily be avoided!" (Id.)

Plaintiff Payne, who lives in Oakland, California, has been an Oakland A's fan for nearly fifty years and "loves" attending games. (Id. ¶ 17.) She purchased season tickets for the first time in 2015. (Id.) She "believes" her seats, in section 211, were less expensive than seats in sections protected by netting. (Id.) Her plaza infield seats are on the second level. (Id. ¶ 18.) Apparently the sections in front of hers, on the first level, are "some of the areas that receive the most foul balls." (Id.) Payne "estimates that at every game, at least three or four balls enter her section." (Id. ¶ 17.) As a result, "she is constantly ducking and weaving to avoid getting hit by foul balls or shattered bats." (Id.) She once "ducked to avoid a foul ball flying her way," but "there is no guarantee she can duck the next time." (Id.) She believes fans are "at increased and imminent risk of injury due to distractions" in the Oakland Coliseum, including a "giant screen" and fan participation contests calling for the use of mobile devices. (Id.)

Plaintiff Gorman lives in South Carolina. (Id. ¶ 19.) Gorman, a university professor, has co-authored a book on fatalities in baseball. (Id. ¶ 23.) A baseball fan since the age of seven, he purchased 2015 season tickets for the Charlotte Knights, a minor league team, in section 114. (Id. ¶ 19.) The seats were not protected by netting. (Id.) He was hit in the head by a foul ball at the team's previous ballpark about fifteen years ago. (Id. ¶ 21.) The ball nearly shattered his glasses. (Id. ¶ 21.) His wife was once hit by a foul ball outside a college baseball stadium. (Id.) He has also witnessed "numerous foul ball injuries" at the Knights' ballpark, including several this season. (Id. ¶ 20.) During the 2015 season, he saw a woman sitting ten rows in front of him get hit by a foul ball on her left collarbone. (Id.) Gorman alleges that "if the ball had hit her just slightly differently, she would have been killed." (Id.) In 2015 he also witnessed a woman hit in the head by a "pop fly," a woman hit in the arm, a bat "fly into the stands near first base," a pitchhit an empty chair, and a foul ball hit a food kiosk on the nearby concourse. (Id.) Finally, on August 26, 2015, a friend sitting next to him "almost had his head taken off" by a line drive. (Id.) The friend was apparently able to react in time. (Id.)

Plaintiff Smith, a resident of King County, Washington, currently lives in California. (Id. ¶ 24.) On June 7, 2015, while attending a Los Angeles Dodgers game with her family, she was hit in the stomach by a line drive foul ball. (Id.) Even though she had seen the ball coming at her, she was unable to avoid getting hit. (Id.) The impact partially collapsed her lung and may have broken her ribs. (Id.) She incurred about $4,300 in medical expenses as a result. (Id.) The Dodgers denied liability. (Id.)

Over time, netting technology has improved from hemp woven screens to screens comprised of thin, lightweight polymers. (Id. ¶ 63.) The new nets are "virtually invisible" except for the seams connecting each large section. (Id.) There is no MLB standard for netting. (Id. ¶ 71.) Most Clubs leave the areas between the dugouts and the foul poles fully exposed, while some end the netting at first and third base. (Id. ¶ 64.) The Dodgers' stadium netting, for instance, is "relatively minimal." (Id. ¶ 69.) The "length and extent of netting" at ballparks has purportedly failed to keep up with "the evolving pace and power of the game." (Id. ¶ 64.) For instance, use of a pitch clock has increased the pace of play, which is expected to be further increased as a result of 2015 rule changes. (Id. ¶ 79.) Pitchers throw harder than ever. (Id. ¶ 82.) Foul balls can travel at more than 100 miles per hour and will often reach fans before they have time to react. (Id. ¶¶ 82-83.) Moreover, stadiums now feature a number of distractions (including "enormous jumbotron screens," Wi-Fi, seatback displays, hot dog cannons, and crowd activities such as "waves"), which decrease fans' awareness and, in turn, their ability to avoid incoming projectiles. (Id. ¶¶ 78, 281.) Plaintiffs suggest the public is largely unaware of these risks, although the FAC cites to hundreds of publications regarding the same. (Id. ¶¶ 96-244, 246.)

Some ticketing sites, including MLB's official site, fail to specify whether a given seat is protected by netting. (Id. ¶ 73.) However, the tickets contain language "advising the ticket holder that he/she assumes all risks and danger." (Id. ¶ 351 n.521.) For instance, Dodgers tickets contain a section entitled "WARNING—ASSUMPTION OF RISK" which includes the followinglanguage:

By using this ticket and entering Dodger Stadium, the holder assumes all risks and danger incidental to the game of baseball, whether such risks occur prior to, during, or subsequent to the playing of the game, including specifically (but not exclusively) the danger of being injured by thrown bats and thrown or batted balls.

(Dkt. No. 52-4.) Certain protected seats—namely, those located right behind home plate—are more expensive than some unprotected seats. (Id. ¶ 74.) At a typical game, about 35 to 40 balls fly into the stands. (Id. ¶ 81.)

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. Count 1 is premised upon defendants' purported failure to provide sufficient netting, failure to disclose the high risk of injury in certain unprotected seats, misrepresentation of ballparks as "safe and family friendly," and introduction of "unnecessary distractions," among other allegations. (FAC ¶ 328.) Counts 2-4 are premised upon defendants' purported concealment of facts regarding the risks in question and representation of ballparks as safe. (Id. ¶¶ 335-36, 340, 351.) Count 5 claims the waivers included on the back of tickets to MLB games are void as against public policy. (Id. ¶ 354.) Count VI is apparently a negligence claim brought solely by plaintiff Smith regarding the personal injury she suffered on June 7, 2015, when hit by a ball at Dodgers stadium. (Id. ¶ 355.)

Among other relief sought,⁶ plaintiffs seek injunctions requiring all existing and future major and minor league ballparks to feature protective netting "from foul pole to foul pole." (Id. ¶ 332.) Plaintiffs estimate extended netting would only cost approximately $10,000 per stadium. (Id. ¶ 71.) Plaintiffs also request the establishment of "a program to study injuries and the rates of injuries amongst spectators, including the type and manner of injury and at what locations in ballparks they...