The National Football League (NFL) has filed a motion to dismiss a San Diego taxpayer’s lawsuit alleging breach of contract involving the 2017 relocation of the Chargers. A hearing is set for July 29.
Plaintiff Ruth Henricks alleges that the football team had hidden its plan to relocate to Los Angeles, according to media reports.
“If the Chargers were out the door, then why did they bother with all the negotiations and why did Spanos keep saying that he wanted to stay in San Diego,” said Randy Karraker, co-host of Karraker & Smallmon on 101 ESPN in St. Louis.
Chargers
| facebook.com/SDChargerBackers/photos/10152612544816367
“It seems like if they had plans to leave in 2008 and that market in Los Angeles was open, they could and would have taken advantage of that. It seems as if this is a situation again where the NFL is claiming one thing, but the reality might be something completely different.”
As previously reported in the Southern California Record, the complaint was patterned after St. Louis v NFL, which resulted in a $750 million settlement to avoid taking to trial before a jury of St. Louisans allegations that the NFL deceptively left Missouri for California.
“It doesn't appear as if San Diego has gotten to that point yet where they have the discovery to prove that the NFL lied and, and conspired like they were able to do here in St. Louis,” Karraker told the Southern California Record. “If they can get the judge to provide them the ability to get discovery, then that might open some doors for them.”
The NFL’s June 20 motion to dismiss argues that Hendricks, as a taxpayer, does not have standing to sue and that a statute of limitations has expired.
“Everybody has a right to sue so it’s going to be a difficult argument because the fact of the matter is that the Chargers didn't move until 2017,” Karraker added. “The Rams moved in 2016. It seems the case would be based upon when the club actually moved, rather than when they actually started to plan to move and if the NFL had admitted in the St Louis case when they actually started to plan to move, that would have proved the lie that St. Louis was alleging.”
The motion to dismiss further states that San Diego is not a third-party beneficiary of the NFL’s relocation policy and that the relocation policy did not create a contract.
“No additional or amended allegations can change the fundamental deficiencies underlying the Complaint, including Plaintiff’s inability to demonstrate taxpayer standing, overcome the City’s express waiver and release of the instant claims, or circumvent the applicable statutes of limitations,” wrote NFL attorneys Mark C. Zebrowski and John E. Hall in their motion to dismiss. “Nor could any additional facts change the plain language of the Relocation Policy or give rise to a claim for fraud based on the Chargers’ relocation.”