Judge Gives Cubs Initial Victory in Rooftop Lawsuit

The Chicago Cubs scored a preliminary victory on Thursday in the lawsuit filed last month by the owners of several of the rooftops looking into Wrigley Field.  As I explained at the time the suit was filed, the case is the latest in a series of legal proceedings challenging the on-going Wrigley Field renovations, and in particular the Cubs’ construction of two new outfield scoreboards.   Unlike earlier legal challenges to the project – which are focused on trying to overturn the city’s approval of the renovation plans – the rooftop owners’ suit against the Cubs charges the team with a variety of legal violations (antitrust, defamation, unfair business practices, breach of contract).

Last week, the rooftop owners asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) preventing the team from building the scoreboards until the case is resolved.  Following four hours of argument on Wednesday, Judge Virginia Kendall issued a decision on Thursday morning denying the rooftops’ request, helping clear the way for the Cubs to move forward with construction of the disputed scoreboards.

In order to receive a TRO, the rooftops generally had to show that they: 1) were likely to prevail in the case, and 2) would suffer an “irreparable” injury (i.e., one that cannot be fully remedied by money) if the restraining order was not granted.  The rooftop owners believed they had established both requirements, arguing in particular that the imminent construction of the scoreboards would destroy their business. Meanwhile, the Cubs argued that the rooftops were unlikely to prevail on any of the claims they had asserted in the lawsuit, and that they could easily be compensated for any damage to their business resulting from the construction of the scoreboards through the payment of monetary damages.

Judge Kendall sided with the Cubs. In a decision issued on Thursday, she began by ruling that the rooftop owners had failed to prove that they were likely to succeed on any of their claims.  In particular, the judge concluded that the rooftops were unlikely to prevail on their federal antitrust claims because the Cubs were merely attempting to lawfully control the distribution of their games.  Although the Cubs had also asserted that they were shielded from these claims by baseball’s antitrust exemption, Judge Kendall decided that she needn’t consider the exemption’s applicability at this time since the rooftops were unlikely to succeed on their antitrust claims for other reasons.

The judge did acknowledge, though, that the rooftop owners’ breach of contract claim against the Cubs – which argues that the construction of the scoreboards violates a 2004 agreement between the rooftops and Cubs providing limited protection to the buildings’ views into the stadium – was a closer call.  As I previously discussed last month, Section 6.6 of the 2004 agreement provides that the Cubs will not to “erect windscreens or other barriers to obstruct the views of the Rooftops,” language that the rooftops have argued prohibits the construction of the new scoreboards. However, this same provision goes on to state that “[a]ny expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this Agreement, including this section,” leading the Cubs to argue that the new scoreboards are permissible as part of an authorized expansion of the stadium.

In her decision on Thursday, Judge Kendall ruled that both sides has presented a plausible interpretation of the contractual provision.  As a result, she concluded, the rooftops had failed to prove that they were likely to prevail on the breach of contract claim in their lawsuit.  However, her decision went on to state that the parties should provide her with further briefing and analysis on the proper interpretation of this provision, suggesting that the judge is potentially open to ultimately ruling in the rooftops’ favor in the case on this claim.

In addition to failing to prove that they were likely to succeed on any of the claims asserted in their lawsuit, Judge Kendall also ruled that the rooftops had failed to establish that they would be irreparably harmed by the construction of the scoreboards.  Of particular note, she determined that the rooftops could be easily compensated for any financial injury that they might sustain from the scoreboards through the payment of monetary damages based on their ticket sales over the past ten years.

While Thursday’s decision was an important victory for the Cubs, the overall impact of the ruling is actually somewhat more modest than it may at first seem.  In particular, although the rooftops failed to obtain a TRO, they have also asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the construction of the scoreboards.  Unlike a TRO – an emergency order that would have only prevented the Cubs from building the scoreboards for at most a few weeks – a preliminary injunction would prevent the team from constructing the scoreboards until after the case is finished.

Judge Kendall has scheduled another hearing for March 23rd to decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction.  Should she grant the rooftops an injunction at that time, then the Cubs would have to wait until a final ruling is issued in the case to move forward with the construction of the scoreboards, a process that could potentially take months or even years to complete.

That having been said, the standard to receive a preliminary injunction is the same as that for a TRO, meaning that the rooftops will still have to persuade Judge Kendall that they are likely to prevail in the case and that the scoreboards will inflict an irreparable injury on their businesses.  While Thursday’s decision leaves open the possibility that the rooftops could convince the judge that they are likely to win on the breach of contract claim, her determination that the rooftops could easily be compensated for any injury via monetary damages will make it difficult for the buildings to establish an irreparable injury.

So it appears unlikely that the rooftops will ultimately be able to stop the Cubs from constructing the new scoreboards (a process that the team currently hopes to finish in May).  Nevertheless, the rooftops will still be able to move forward with their lawsuit in the hopes of receiving monetary damages from the Cubs.  So despite Thursday’s ruling, the litigation between the Cubs and the rooftops will likely continue to drag on for some time.  But the lawsuit is now much less likely to derail the Wrigley Field renovations.