McAllister v.St. Louis Rams, LLC

Filing 362

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 211 MOTION to Dismiss : Rams' Counterclaim filed by Plaintiff Ronald McAllister. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Ronald McAllister's motion to dismiss counterclaim (#211) is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 3/23/18. (CSG)

Case: 4:16-cv-00172-SNLJ Doc. #: 362 Filed: 03/23/18 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #: 9053

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RONALD MCALLISTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE ST. LOUIS RAMS, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-CV-172 SNLJ
No. 4:16-CV-262
No. 4:16-CV-297
CONSOLIDATED

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Ronald McAllister’s motion to dismiss
the St. Louis Rams, LLC’s counterclaim. Plaintiff McAllister filed a lawsuit against the
Rams after the Rams announced they would move from St. Louis to California in January
2016. Plaintiff held a Personal Seat License (“PSL”) that entitled him to buy season
tickets to the Rams’ home games in St. Louis. He claims, among other things, that the
Rams terminated the PSL Agreement by moving to California and that the Rams
therefore owe him a refund.
The Rams have filed a third party complaint against the Regional Convention and
Visitors Commission (the “CVC”) for contractual indemnification for claims arising out
of the CVC’s operations, functions, and obligations, including with respect to the FANS
PSLs. In order to preserve their rights under certain agreements between various parties,
the Rams filed that third party complaint against the CVC along with a counterclaim
against plaintiff McAllister. (#149.) Count I of the of the combined counterclaim and
third party complaint seeks declaratory relief against McAllister and the CVC that any
claims that McAllister may have in connection with the FANS PSLs are liabilities of
1

Case: 4:16-cv-00172-SNLJ Doc. #: 362 Filed: 03/23/18 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #: 9054

FANS and the CVC only and that McAllister has no claim against the Rams. Counts II
and III --- which are not addressed to McAllister --- seek contractual and equitable
indemnification from the CVC for any liability the Rams may have to Mr. McAllister, as
well as for the Rams’ costs in defending the claims. Those Counts against the CVC has
been referred to arbitration as required by the contracts between the Rams and the CVC.
McAllister has moved to dismiss the Rams’ counterclaim against him. The
analysis is complicated because McAllister has filed no claims against FANS, Inc. or the
CVC, but only against the Rams.
I.

Legal Standard
Plaintiff moves to discuss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and

12(b)(6). The standard applicable to a motion under Rule 12(b)(1) is the same as that
applied to Rule 12(b)(6). Se. Missouri Hosp. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 1:07CV0031 TCM, 2008
WL 4104534, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 27, 2008). The Court accepts as true all factual
allegations in the complaint. Id. Dismissal is inappropriate unless the complaint fails to
allege “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation omitted).
II.

Discussion
The Rams’ counterclaim’s Count I seeks the following: a stay1 of the proceedings

between the Rams and McAllister pending the arbitration between the Rams and the
CVC; confirmation of the arbitration; and a declaration that (1) FANS was acting on its
own behalf and as agent for the CVC in selling PSLs, (2) the Rams have not succeeded to
1

Plaintiff argues that the Rams’ request for a stay as part of their Count I relief should be dismissed. Because the
Rams’ request for stay of McAllister’s case has already been denied (#190), however, the Court denies this request
as moot.

2

Case: 4:16-cv-00172-SNLJ Doc. #: 362 Filed: 03/23/18 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #: 9055

the obligations or liabilities of FANS or the CVC under the FANS PSL Agreement, (3)
the Rams have no further obligations with respect to the FANS PSLs following their
move to Los Angeles, and (4) to the extent any refund is due to plaintiff, it is due from
the CVC and not the Rams. Plaintiff’s arguments for dismissal are discussed in turn
below.
A.

Declaratory Judgment Concerning Arbitration

The Rams seek an order confirming the results of the arbitration between the
Rams and the CVC. McAllister argues that because he has nothing to do with the
arbitration, the Court should dismiss the claim as it is pleaded against him. Indeed, the
Rams concede that if the arbitration concludes before this case, they will seek to have the
arbitration award confirmed in their favor against the CVC. (#234 at 9-10.) Thus the
counterclaim seeking confirmation of the arbitration award as against McAllister shall be
dismissed.
B.

Declarations that are Duplicative of Allegations in Answer

Next, plaintiff argues that the Rams’ counterclaim merely repeats allegations that
the Rams made in their Answer --- that FANS was not their agent, that the Rams did not
succeed to the obligations of the licensor under the FANS PSL Agreement, and that the
Rams have no obligation to FANS PSL owners. Plaintiff points out that the Rams will
have their contentions fully adjudicated because they placed them at issue in their
Answer, so they are duplicative, serve no useful purpose, and should be dismissed. (#212
at 14, citing Stokes v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 2015 WL 3968153, at *11 (W.D. Mo. June
30, 2015) and Padberg v. DISH Network LLC, 2012 WL 2120765, at *6 (W.D. Mo. June
11, 2012).)

3

Case: 4:16-cv-00172-SNLJ Doc. #: 362 Filed: 03/23/18 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #: 9056

The Court agrees that these aspects of the Rams’ prayer for relief are merely
defenses already raised in their answer to the McAllister complaint. To the extent the
Rams seeks broader relief against McAllister than McAllister seeks against the Rams,
this Court has already determined that McAllister is limited to the relief as discussed in
this Court’s memorandum and order granting class certification. (#355 at 21-22.)
Ultimately, the Court finds that the declaratory judgment sought by the Rams
serves no useful purpose. The Court thus uses its discretion to dismiss the Counterclaim
against McAllister brought by the Rams. See, e.g., Cincinnati Indem. Co. v. A & K
Const. Co., 542 F.3d 623, 625 (8th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Ronald McAllister’s motion to dismiss
counterclaim (#211) is GRANTED.
Dated this 23rd

day of March, 2018.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4