City of San Jose v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball — Complaint with Exhibits
From WikiLeague, the free baseball governance encyclopedia.
**The originating complaint for City of San Jose v. MLB** — filed June 18, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 188 pages including extensive exhibits. The City of San Jose and the San Jose Diridon Development Authority sued MLB and Commissioner Selig over MLB's effective veto of the Oakland Athletics' proposed relocation to San Jose. The Athletics had been seeking to leave the Coliseum (Alameda County) for a new ballpark in San Jose's Diridon district; MLB's 'Relocation Committee' had been 'still at work' for four years without resolution by 2013, and San Jose alleged the delay was structural sabotage by the San Francisco Giants (whose territorial rights included San Jose). Plaintiffs alleged violations of federal antitrust law (Sherman Act §§ 1, 2), California state antitrust law (the Cartwright Act), California Unfair Competition Law, and California tort law. **The District Court (Whyte, J.) dismissed all federal and state antitrust claims under MLB's antitrust exemption** in October 2013. The 9th Circuit affirmed in January 2015 (the City of San Jose v. MLB ruling in archive). Filed by **Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP** — Joseph Cotchett's antitrust litigation firm.
Background
The originating complaint — pairs naturally with the 9th Circuit ruling in archive. The exhibits (~150 pages beyond the complaint body) likely contain valuable background material: MLB territorial rights documentation, A's-San Jose option agreement, Relocation Committee correspondence, etc. The Athletics eventually relocated to Las Vegas in the 2023-2025 process — the San Jose litigation foreshadowed the structural challenges that the Vegas move ultimately resolved differently.
Key provisions
- [Detailed content review of 188-page complaint with exhibits deferred — high priority follow-up given the rich background documentation likely contained in the exhibits.]
Notable provisions
[Not transcribed.]
Further context
City of San Jose v. MLB — Complaint (June 18, 2013)
The 188-page complaint that became the 2015 9th Cir. ruling already in archive. Filed by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy. Rich exhibit material warrants deep content review.
References
- Primary source: cpmlegal.com — U.S. District Court N.D. Cal. (filed by plaintiffs' counsel), retrieved 2026-05-17.
- Confirmation source: cpmlegal.com — Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP (plaintiffs' counsel). 188-page complaint with exhibits. Filed June 18, 2013. The originating complaint that became City of San Jose v. MLB (in archive at 2015-01-15_caselaw_city-of-san-jose-v-mlb after the 9th Cir. ruling). Filed by Joseph Cotchett's firm — Cotchett is also represented other notable plaintiff-side antitrust matters.
- File fingerprint: SHA256 cda9ed18a5d49ad91e7419d01db4f5c2a5703091336eb309e17a2b5883834495.
Evidence trail
Per archive editorial standards §1.3 and §1.4, verified documents require two independent confirmation sources and an archive.org snapshot. This panel is the integrity record the archive holds for this document.
File integrity
- SHA256
cda9ed18a5d49ad91e7419d01db4f5c2a5703091336eb309e17a2b5883834495- Filename
2013-06-18_filing_san-jose-v-mlb-complaint-with-exhibits.pdf- Format
- PDF · 188 pp · 3.72 MB
- Retrieved
- 2026-05-17 by
claude/cowork-9167cb28 (uploaded by alex) - Primary URL
- https://www.cpmlegal.com/media/news/139_2013-06-18_COMPLAINT__WITH%20EXHIBITS_.pdf
Confirmation sources (1)
| Publisher | Retrieved | URL | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP (plaintiffs' counsel) | 2026-05-17 | https://www.cpmlegal.com/media/news/139_2013-06-18_COMPLAINT__WITH%20EXHIBITS_.pdf | 188-page complaint with exhibits. Filed June 18, 2013. The originating complaint that became City of San Jose v. MLB (in archive at 2015-01-15_caselaw_city-of-san-jose-v-mlb after the 9th Cir. ruling). Filed by Joseph Cotchett's firm — Cotchett is also represented other notable plaintiff-side antitrust matters. |
Most recent status change
needs_review on 2026-05-17 by claude/cowork-9167cb28.
PDF acquired via upload from CPM Legal (plaintiffs' counsel) website. **Originating complaint** for the case eventually decided at 776 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 2015, already in archive).