Benedict et. al v. Manfred et. al
Filing
97
OPINION AND ORDER re: 89 AMENDED MOTION Entry of Order Deeming Defenses of Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue Waived and Requiring an Answer . filed by Paul W Runge, Richard T Ingalls, Robert D Wilfong, Scott Trcka, T heodore Lekas Jr., James S BEnedict, Rick L Ragazzo, Steven Pope, Steven E Jongewaard, Timothy A Mcintosh, Christopher J. Smith, Gregory G Whitworth, Dennis M Sheehan, William C Latham, Jeffery N Scholzen, Randall G Johnson, Christopher Bourjos. For the reasons explained above, Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED. Defendants are hereby ORDERED to answer or move against the Fifth Amended Complaint by no later than February 28, 2025. Counsel for all parties are directed to meet and confer and su bmit a joint letter with a proposed schedule for briefing on any motions to dismiss and for conducting discovery in this action by no later than March 7, 2025. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. No. 89. SO ORDERED. AZPB Limited Partnership answer due 2/28/2025; Angels Baseball LP answer due 2/28/2025; Athletics Investment Group LLC answer due 2/28/2025; Atlanta National League Baseball Club, Inc. answer due 2/28/2025; Baltimore Orioles Limited Partnership Inc, The a nswer due 2/28/2025; Baseball Club of Seattle, LLLP, The answer due 2/28/2025; Boston Red Sox Baseball Club L.P. answer due 2/28/2025; Chicago Cubs Baseball Club LLC answer due 2/28/2025; Chicago White Sox Ltd. answer due 2/28/2025; Cincinnati Reds, LLC, The answer due 2/28/2025; Cleveland Guardians Baseball Company, LLC, The answer due 2/28/2025; Colorado Rockies Baseball Club Ltd. answer due 2/28/2025; Detroit Tigers Inc. answer due 2/28/2025; Houston Astros LLC answer due 2/28/2025; Kansas Ci ty Royals Baseball Club LLC answer due 2/28/2025; Los Angeles Dodgers LLC answer due 2/28/2025; Robert Manfred answer due 2/28/2025; Marlins Teamco, LLC answer due 2/28/2025; Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, Inc. answer due 2/28/2025; Minnesota Twins , LLC answer due 2/28/2025; New York Yankees Partnership answer due 2/28/2025; Office of the commissioner of baseball, The answer due 2/28/2025; Padres L.P. answer due 2/28/2025; Phillies, The answer due 2/28/2025; Pittsburgh Associates, L.P. answer due 2/28/2025; Rangers Baseball LLC answer due 2/28/2025; Rogers Blue Jays Baseball Partnership answer due 2/28/2025; San Francisco Baseball Associates LLC answer due 2/28/2025; St. Louis Cardinals, L.L.C. answer due 2/28/2025; Sterling Mets L.P. answer due 2/28/2025; Tampa Bay Rays Baseball Ltd. answer due 2/28/2025; Washington Nationals Baseball Club, LLC answer due 2/28/2025. (Signed by Judge Margaret M. Garnett on 1/29/2025) (kv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
1/29/2025
JAMES S. BENEDICT et al.,
Plaintiffs,
24-CV-04314 (MMG)
-against-
OPINION & ORDER
ROBERT MANFRED et al.,
Defendants.
MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge:
This case, which involves age discrimination claims by baseball scouts against Major
League Baseball and all of its affiliated teams, was originally filed in the District of Colorado.
All defendants other than the Colorado Rockies Baseball Club Ltd. (“Colorado Rockies”) moved
to dismiss on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Dkt. No. 39. After a
Fourth Amended Complaint was filed, Dkt. No. 60, the non-Colorado Rockies defendants again
moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Dkt. No. 63. The motion
was resolved by the assigned district judge in Colorado exercising his authority under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a) to grant a discretionary transfer of the case to this District, finding that the factors
favored this jurisdiction for both venue and personal jurisdiction reasons, without deciding that
either venue or personal jurisdiction would lie in this District. Dkt. No. 71. The Opinion was
entered on May 20, 2024. Id. On June 6, 2024, the case first appeared on the docket of this
Court, as a transferred case. Dkt. No. 72. On June 10, 2024, the Court entered an order setting
an initial pretrial conference for July 24, 2024, Dkt. No. 73, and thereafter counsel for the
various parties began filing notices of appearance and moving for admission pro hac vice.
The first substantive filing on the docket in this Court was the parties’ joint preconference letter, required by the Court’s Individual Rules, filed on July 17, 2024. Dkt. No. 86.
1
This letter previewed the parties’ positions on the present motion by Plaintiffs to deem waived
any defenses based on personal jurisdiction or improper venue in this District. Id. On July 22,
2024, Plaintiffs moved to default all non-Colorado Rockies defendants, Dkt. No. 88, and the
following day filed the present motion, Dkt. No. 89. The Court held a conference on July 24,
2024, denied as moot Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default, directed Defendants to oppose the
waiver motion by August 6, and directed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint alleging
jurisdiction and venue in this District by August 20, 2024. Dkt. No. 90. The waiver motion is
now fully briefed, and a Fifth Amended Complaint has been filed. Discovery and the time to
answer the Fifth Amended Complaint have been stayed since the July 24 conference.
The motion now before the Court seeks to deem defenses of personal jurisdiction and
improper venue waived by all Defendants other than the Colorado Rockies, on the ground that,
whether calculated from the date of the Colorado judge’s order or from the date this Court
docketed the case as transferred, the Defendants did not answer or file a motion re-asserting
these defenses within the 14 days provided for by Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Dkt. No. 89. There is no dispute that: (i) all Defendants are represented by counsel
who have appeared in the action and repeatedly engaged with Plaintiffs’ counsel; (ii)
Defendants’ counsel promptly began filing notices of appearance or motions to appear pro hac
vice in this Court within days of the docketing of the case in this District; (iii) prior to August 20,
2024, the operative complaint in this case (the Fourth Amended Complaint) contained no
allegations regarding venue or personal jurisdiction specific to the Southern District of New
York; (iv) by no later than July 9, 2024, counsel had conferred regarding when Plaintiffs
intended to file an amended complaint to allege personal jurisdiction and venue in the Southern
District of New York; and (v) such conferrals took place in a setting in which all counsel were
2
aware that a joint status letter was due to the Court by July 17, 2024, and an initial pretrial
conference before the Court was calendared for July 24, 2024. Despite this undisputed set of
facts, Plaintiffs nonetheless seek to deem defenses waived that could not have been brought
against the operative complaint, or, if they could have been brought in some form, would simply
have occasioned another round of motion practice after Plaintiffs filed their Fifth Amended
Complaint to properly allege jurisdiction and venue in this District.
DISCUSSION
Waiver is a species of default and, as Plaintiffs acknowledge, findings of default, in
whatever form, are disfavored in the Second Circuit in favor of resolving disputes on the merits.
Dkt. No. 89 at 2–3. The Second Circuit has established three criteria to guide district courts
when deciding whether to grant relief from default: (1) whether the default was willful;
(2) whether setting aside the default would prejudice the adversary; and (3) whether the moving
party has shown that a defense may be meritorious. See, e.g., Com. Bank of Kuwait v. Rafidain
Bank, 15 F.3d 238, 243 (2d Cir. 1994); Dkt. No. 89 at 3. Under the undisputed facts and
circumstances here, a finding that Defendants had waived defenses of personal jurisdiction and
venue would be unjust.
First, both parties acknowledge that there is no caselaw directly addressing what a
discretionary transfer of venue means for the otherwise-applicable time limitations in Rule 12,
although they disagree about what conclusion should be drawn from that null set. However,
given the unquestioned active participation by Defendants’ counsel in the action after the transfer
here (including in seeking to confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding an appropriate schedule to
propose to the Court to conform this action to its new venue), the Court cannot conclude that
Defendants “willfully” defaulted on an applicable deadline. Second, the only possible prejudice
3
arising from Defendants’ actions is the delay in this case occasioned by the need for the Court to
resolve this borderline-frivolous motion. Third, while the Court expresses no view as to the
likelihood of success on any claim regarding personal jurisdiction or venue that may be raised by
Defendants, the defenses certainly have potential merit. All factors tilt in favor of finding that
Defendants have not waived defenses otherwise available to them under Rules 12(b)(2) and (3),
and accordingly the Plaintiffs’ motion is denied.
Finally, the filing of this motion and the conduct of counsel in connection with it
illustrates a pointless elevation of form over substance, as well as a level of professional pettiness
that is unbecoming of lawyers practicing in this District. There is no reason whatsoever why the
uncertainty, if any, surrounding the schedule of the case following transfer could not have been
resolved amicably through an ordinary meet-and-confer by counsel, or by filing a simple letter
seeking the Court’s guidance or assistance in resolving any dispute—either of which would have
saved everyone considerable time and resources. The Court sincerely hopes that this episode
does not foreshadow the conduct of the case going forward.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. Defendants are hereby
ORDERED to answer or move against the Fifth Amended Complaint by no later than February
28, 2025. Counsel for all parties are directed to meet and confer and submit a joint letter with a
proposed schedule for briefing on any motions to dismiss and for conducting discovery in this
action by no later than March 7, 2025.
4
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. No. 89.
Dated: January 29, 2025
New York, New York
SO ORDERED.
MARGARET M. GARNETT
United States District Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?