## Facts

- Rooftop businesses operated seating on buildings across the street from Wrigley Field and sold tickets to watch Chicago Cubs games from those rooftops.
- In 2004, the Cubs and rooftop operators entered a License Agreement resolving prior disputes over rooftop ticket sales.
- The agreement required rooftop operators to pay the Cubs 17% of gross revenues and, in return, granted a license to sell rooftop tickets with protected sightlines into the ballpark.
- The agreement barred the Cubs from erecting “barricades” blocking long-distance viewing from across the street but permitted “any expansion” of Wrigley Field approved by a governmental authority.
- The Cubs developed a renovation plan including additional structures (video boards and large signage) located to obstruct rooftop views.
- The Cubs obtained approvals for the renovation from the Chicago Landmarks Commission and other city authorities.
- Rooftop operators sued for breach of contract and federal antitrust violations and sought emergency injunctive relief to stop construction.

## Issues

1. Whether the rooftop operators satisfied the requirements for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, including irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits.
2. Whether the planned video boards and signage breached the 2004 License Agreement’s non-obstruction provisions or were permitted as an “expansion” approved by governmental authority.
3. Whether the Cubs’ conduct stated viable Sherman Act claims or was barred by Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption (and, independently, failed for lack of a plausible relevant market and anticompetitive conduct).

## Decision

- The court denied a temporary restraining order, finding the requested emergency relief was not justified on the record presented, including failure to show immediate irreparable harm before the preliminary-injunction hearing.
- The court denied a preliminary injunction.
- On the contract claim, the court found the renovation fit within the agreement’s allowance for “any expansion” approved by governmental authority, given the approvals obtained.
- On the antitrust claims, the court found the claims unlikely to succeed due to Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption and additional deficiencies, including problems with market definition and the theory that antitrust law could restrict the Cubs’ distribution of their own product.
- The court also concluded that asserted business losses were largely compensable by damages, weighing against extraordinary equitable relief.

## Legal Principles

- Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are extraordinary remedies requiring, at minimum, a showing of irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits.
- Contract interpretation at the injunction stage turns on the agreement’s text; an express contractual exception permitting “any expansion” approved by governmental authority can authorize renovations even if they reduce a counterparty’s expected benefit.
- Major League Baseball’s judicially recognized antitrust exemption can bar Sherman Act claims challenging conduct tied to the business of providing professional baseball games, including ballpark-related decisions affecting access to viewing.
- Antitrust plaintiffs must plead a plausible relevant market and exclusionary conduct; control over the distribution of one’s own product, without more, generally does not establish an antitrust violation.
- Where monetary damages can adequately remedy alleged harm, equitable relief is disfavored.

## Conclusion

The court refused to stop the Cubs’ Wrigley Field renovations because the rooftop operators did not meet the demanding standards for emergency or preliminary injunctive relief, the contract’s “any expansion” clause (given governmental approvals) defeated the asserted breach theory at that stage, and the antitrust claims were barred and otherwise unlikely to succeed.


Right Field Rooftops, LLC v. Chi. Baseball Holdings, LLC, 87 F. Supp. 3d 874 (N.D. Ill. 2015)