Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Baker v. Major League Baseball Properties

September 8, 2009

RICHARD J. BAKER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PROPERTIES, INC., MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL; MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS' ASSOCIATION; SAN DIEGO PADRES BASEBALL CLUB, LP; AND WORLD BASEBALL CLASSIC, INC., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge

ORDER

The matters before the Court are the (1) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, or Alternative Motion for a More Definite Statement of Plaintiff's Claims ("Motion to Dismiss"), filed by Defendants Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. ("MLBP"), Major League Baseball Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Major League Baseball ("MLB"), San Diego Padres Baseball Club, LP ("Padres"), and World Baseball Classic, Inc. ("WBC") (collectively, "MLB Defendants") (Doc. # 98); and the (2) Motion to Dismiss Per FRCP 12(b)(6) or in the Alternative for a More Definite Statement Per FRCP 12(e) ("Motion to Dismiss"), filed by Defendant Major League Baseball Players' Association ("MLBPA") (Doc. # 112).

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 18, 2008, Plaintiff Richard J. Baker filed a Complaint against the MLB Defendants, the MLBPA, the City of San Diego, Ace Parking, Inc., JMI Sports LLC, American Specialty Insurance & Risk Services, Inc., and ABC Insurance Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleging diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. # 1). According to the Complaint, "Plaintiff brings this action to recover for personal injuries suffered on March 20, 2006, in a trip and fall accident in a parking lot to PETCO Park stadium (hereinafter, 'PETCO') in San Diego, California." (Doc. # 1, ¶ 1).

On May 23, 2008, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint adding Ballpark Village LLC as a named Defendant. (Doc. # 15).

Between May 24, 2008 and July 30, 2008, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendants JMI Sports LLC, City of San Diego, American Specialty Insurance & Risk Services, Inc., and Ace Parking, Inc. (Doc. # 17, 18, 30, 34, 59).

In June and July of 2008, each of the remaining Defendants filed motions to dismiss, or, in the alternative, motions for more definite statement. (Doc. # 24-28, 31, 39). On August 12, 2008, the court granted the motions for a more definite statement. (Doc. # 63).

On September 1, 2008, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which named the MLB Defendants and the MLBPA as the sole defendants. (Doc # 66).

On September 15, 2008, the MLB Defendants filed motions to dismiss the SAC or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement. (Doc. # 69-71). On September 22, 2009, the MLBPA filed a motion to dismiss the SAC or, in the alternative, to transfer. (Doc. # 72).

On April 22, 2009, the court granted the MLBPA's motion to transfer venue, and denied all other pending motions "as moot." (Doc. #92 at 7). Pursuant to the court's order, this action was transferred to this Court on April 22, 2009. (Doc. # 93).

On June 26, 2009, the MLB Defendants filed their currently-pending Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. # 98). On July 17, 2009, the MLBPA filed its Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. # 112). On July 26, 2009 and August 9, 2009, Plaintiff filed oppositions to the Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. # 113-114).

II. ALLEGATIONS OF THE SAC

On March 20, 2006, Plaintiff was lawfully on the "Campus Parking Lot" while attending the 2006 "World Baseball Classic Championship," an event sponsored by the MLB Defendants and the MLBPA. (SAC ¶¶ 1, 19, 29). The MLB Defendants and the MLBPA "assumed the operation, management, maintenance and control of PETCO, and the surrounding parking lots, for the performance of the World Baseball Classic Championship Finals on March 20, 2006." (SAC ¶ 20). The Defendants "set up ... on the premises of PETCO, and surrounding parking lots ... attractions [which] consisted of and were contained in several 'trailer' type buildings set around various parts of the PETCO parking lots, to include the Campus Parking Lot generally to the east of the stadium building." (SAC ¶¶ 30-31). "Automobiles were not parked ... in the Campus Parking Lot in order to provide room for the attractions." (SAC ¶ 31). The "attractions were naturally set up to visually attract pedestrians and draw them near; obviously this distracted these passersby from looking down to alert themselves of any danger lurking underneath their feet." (SAC ¶ 33).

"The Campus Parking Lot ... includes [asphalt] ... curbs or 'sidewalks' to the other areas of the lot where motor vehicles would have been parked. These raised areas--curbs or sidewalks--at the time, were not painted or otherwise marked by some significant visual means to show a raised area of the parking lot." (SAC ΒΆ 32). "No markings, no paint scheme, no warning signs, no warning cones of any type were placed at, near or around the area where the walking surface of the 'curb' or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.