Lexplug logoLexplug

Oakland Raiders v. National Football League

California Court of Appeal
32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 266, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6655, 131 Cal. App. 4th 621 (2005)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A voluntary unincorporated association and its leadership do not owe a fiduciary duty to individual members unless created by specific agreement or a special legal relationship, and courts generally must abstain from intervening in the internal disputes of such private organizations.


Facts:

  • The Oakland Raiders are a member club of the National Football League (NFL), which is organized as a private unincorporated association, not a corporation.
  • Paul Tagliabue served as the Commissioner of the NFL, a role granted broad disciplinary and administrative powers by the NFL Constitution and Bylaws.
  • The Raiders alleged that the NFL and Tagliabue treated them disparately compared to other clubs, specifically by blocking the Raiders' former owner from purchasing the Oakland Athletics baseball team.
  • The Raiders further alleged they were removed from influential NFL committees and excluded from participating in the World League of American Football, causing them competitive disadvantage.
  • The NFL Constitution creates a contractual relationship where member clubs agree to be bound by the Commissioner's decisions and grants the Commissioner power to penalize clubs for conduct detrimental to the League.
  • The Raiders claimed these actions constituted a breach of fiduciary duty owed by the League and Commissioner to the individual club.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Oakland Raiders sued the NFL and Commissioner Tagliabue in state trial court for breach of fiduciary duty (among other claims).
  • The defendants (NFL and Tagliabue) filed a motion for summary adjudication regarding the breach of fiduciary duty claim.
  • The trial court granted the motion for summary adjudication in favor of the defendants.
  • The Raiders filed motions for a new trial, reconsideration, and leave to amend the complaint, all of which the trial court denied.
  • The trial court entered final judgment in favor of the defendants.
  • The Raiders appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do the National Football League and its Commissioner owe a fiduciary duty to an individual member club, and should the court intervene in their internal management disputes?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Premo

No, the NFL and its Commissioner do not stand in a fiduciary relationship with the Raiders, and the court must abstain from the dispute. The court reasoned that fiduciary duties arise either from technical legal relationships (like trustee-beneficiary) or by specific agreement. The NFL is an unincorporated association, not a corporation; therefore, corporate precedents regarding majority shareholders owing duties to minority shareholders do not apply. Furthermore, the NFL Constitution grants the Commissioner broad powers to act against the interests of individual clubs for the good of the League, which is fundamentally inconsistent with a fiduciary's obligation to act in the beneficiary's best interest. Additionally, under the California Dental abstention doctrine, courts should not intervene in the internal affairs of private voluntary associations unless the action plainly contravenes the bylaws and arbitrarily invades private rights. The court found that judicial intervention in the complex business of professional football would be entering a 'dismal swamp' better left to the association's autonomy.


Concurring - Presiding Justice Rushing

Yes, the judgment is legally correct, but the grammatical usage is objectionable. While agreeing with the legal conclusion that summary adjudication was proper, the Justice wrote separately to criticize the majority opinion's use of singular verbs when referring to the Raiders (e.g., 'the Raiders asserts'). The concurrence argued that treating the team name as a singular noun creates 'fumbling dissonance' and suggested referring to the party as 'the plaintiff' to avoid the grammatical awkwardness.



Analysis:

This case creates a significant barrier for members of unincorporated associations, particularly professional sports leagues, attempting to sue the organization for internal management decisions. By distinguishing unincorporated associations from corporations, the court limits the application of corporate fiduciary duties (like those in Jones v. H.F. Ahmanson) to these entities. The decision reinforces the strong judicial preference for 'abstention' in private organizational disputes, granting sports leagues broad autonomy to police themselves without fear of liability for breach of fiduciary duty to individual teams. It establishes that the Commissioner's role is to serve the League as a whole, even if that requires acting adversely to a specific member.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"