Background

Phase 2 wantlist progress. The complaint is the underlying pleading for the entire Anaheim Angels naming-rights litigation chain. The litigation arc, in chronological order: (1) January 4, 2005 — this complaint filed (Anaheim's signature date in the verified pleading); (2) January 21, 2005 — Anaheim moves for preliminary injunction; trial court (Hon. Peter J. Polos, Orange County Superior Court) denies; (3) June 27, 2005 — Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, Div. 3 (G035159) denies Anaheim's writ-petition challenge to the preliminary-injunction denial — opinion in this archive as 2005-06-27_caselaw_anaheim-v-superior-court-writ-denial; (4) 2006 — Trial. Jury rejects Anaheim's claims and returns verdict for Angels Baseball; (5) December 19, 2008 — Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, Div. 3 (G037202) affirms the trial verdict and Anaheim's appellate challenges to evidentiary rulings — opinion in this archive (via fearnotlaw secondary reprint) as 2008-12-19_caselaw_anaheim-v-angels-trial-appeal-fearnotlaw-reprint. The 5-page Summary of Opinions document in the archive at 2005-07-12_caselaw_anaheim-v-orange-county-summary is a derivative analytical summary, not a court ruling itself. Counsel-side note: the City Attorney's office (Jack White) and Rutan & Tucker LLP are listed on the complaint; the Angels' lawyers across the litigation chain include Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton; Rutan & Tucker (later, for the Angels); Powell Goldstein; Buchalter Nemer; Luce Forward; Theodora Oringher Miller & Richman. The 2008 appellate panel included references to George J. Stephan for the Angels (Powell Goldstein → Sheppard Mullin), Robert M. Dato and Brian P. Barrow, William B. Shearer Jr., William V. Custer — the same lawyer slates appear across the complaint, writ-denial, and post-trial appeal.

Key provisions

• Counts pleaded: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Injunctive Relief; (4) Declaratory Relief. All under Section 11(f) of the 1996 Lease Agreement between Anaheim and Disney Baseball Enterprises.
• Section 11(f) cited: 1996 Lease Section 11(f) required Disney (and its successors) to change the team name to include 'Anaheim' therein. Disney complied by renaming the team the Anaheim Angels shortly after executing the Lease.
• Breach allegation: Angels Baseball, L.P. (Moreno) changed the team name to 'Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim' in January 2005. Anaheim's pleading: this rebrand violated Section 11(f) because 'Anaheim' is functionally a subordinate appendix to 'Los Angeles' rather than a primary identifier.
• Damages framing: Plaintiff City of Anaheim derives a substantial portion of its general funds from hotel occupancy taxes, which are driven by tourism, convention, sports, and entertainment industries. Loss of 'Anaheim Angels' national-broadcast and merchandise identification is alleged to materially impair the City's economic interests.
• Relief sought: Money damages, injunctive relief requiring restoration of 'Anaheim' as a primary team-name component, declaratory judgment interpreting Section 11(f), attorney's fees, and costs.

Notable provisions

The change in the name of the team from the California Angels to the Anaheim Angels was extremely important to the City Council and to the City staff because Anaheim is a world-wide tourism, convention, sports and entertainment center and derives the greatest portion of its general funds from hotel occupancy taxes, funds that are driven by the tourism, convention, sports, and entertainment industries.— Complaint at ¶ 6

Further context

City of Anaheim v. Angels Baseball, L.P. — Original Complaint (Jan. 4, 2005)

The original Superior Court complaint by the City of Anaheim against Angels Baseball, L.P., filed January 4, 2005 in Orange County Superior Court under case number 05CC01902. The pleading underlying the entire Anaheim Angels naming-rights litigation chain. Phase 2 wantlist progress.

What the complaint alleged

The 1996 Lease Agreement between Anaheim and Disney Baseball Enterprises (Disney's affiliate that purchased the California Angels in 1996) included Section 11(f), which required the team name to "include the name Anaheim therein." Disney complied by renaming the team the Anaheim Angels. When Arte Moreno's ownership group bought the team from Disney in 2003 and renamed it the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in January 2005, Anaheim sued. The City's theory: the rebrand technically included "Anaheim" as a geographic suffix but violated Section 11(f)'s purpose, which was to ensure Anaheim's primary identification with the team.

Four counts: Breach of Contract; Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Injunctive Relief; Declaratory Relief.

The litigation chain, in order

1. January 4, 2005 — This complaint filed.
2. January 21, 2005 — Anaheim moves for preliminary injunction; trial court denies.
3. June 27, 2005 — Cal. Ct. App. (G035159) denies Anaheim's writ petition challenging the injunction denial. In this archive as 2005-06-27_caselaw_anaheim-v-superior-court-writ-denial.
4. 2006 — Trial. Jury verdict for Angels Baseball.
5. December 19, 2008 — Cal. Ct. App. (G037202) affirms the trial verdict. In this archive (via fearnotlaw secondary reprint) as 2008-12-19_caselaw_anaheim-v-angels-trial-appeal-fearnotlaw-reprint.

Related documents in the archive

• 2005-07-12_caselaw_anaheim-v-orange-county-summary.md — earlier-acquired 5-page Summary of Opinions document.
• 2005-06-27_caselaw_anaheim-v-superior-court-writ-denial.md — the June 2005 Court of Appeal opinion denying Anaheim's writ petition.
• 2008-12-19_caselaw_anaheim-v-angels-trial-appeal-fearnotlaw-reprint.md — the December 2008 Court of Appeal opinion (via secondary reprint).

Related documents

Related documents

Anaheim v. Orange County (Angels naming case), Anaheim v. Superior Court (writ-denial opinion, June 2005), Anaheim v. Angels — post-trial appeal opinion (Dec 2008, via secondary reprint)

Source provenance

• Primary source
• Wayback Machine archive