## Facts

- Rick Barry granted an option for his professional basketball services connected to the Oakland ABA franchise, and related guaranty and indemnity agreements were executed.
- Barry later signed an ABA Uniform Player Contract with the Oakland Oaks, amended to set a three-year term commencing when no court order enjoined his playing and no adjudication denied his freedom to contract.
- In prior litigation, a California court had enjoined Barry from playing for the Oaks for a season; the ABA contract term was structured to begin once he was free of such restraint.
- Washington Capitols Basketball Club, Inc. acquired the Oaks ABA franchise and succeeded to the team’s contractual rights in Barry’s services.
- Barry refused to report to Washington and instead entered an August 1969 contract to play for the San Francisco Warriors (NBA).
- Washington sued Barry and the Warriors entities for declaratory and equitable relief and damages, and moved for a preliminary injunction to stop Barry from playing elsewhere during the contract term.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may preliminarily enjoin a professional athlete from playing for any team other than the contracting club while the athlete is in default under a valid player contract.
2. Whether Barry’s services were sufficiently unique and damages sufficiently inadequate to justify negative injunctive relief.
3. Whether Washington, as successor to the original club’s rights, could enforce the player contract against Barry.
4. Whether the Warriors and their general partner could be enjoined from enforcing a later contract that conflicted with Washington’s prior contractual rights.

## Decision

- The court granted Washington’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- Barry was enjoined from playing professional basketball for any team other than Washington while his contract remained in force and he was in default.
- The Warriors and their general partner were enjoined from attempting to enforce their August 1969 playing contract with Barry.
- In a subsequent order, the court addressed and adjusted the injunction bond to account for the financial risk of wrongful restraint.

## Legal Principles

- Courts will not order affirmative specific performance of personal services contracts, but may grant negative injunctive relief restraining a unique performer from providing contracted services to others in breach of a valid agreement.
- A performer’s services are “unique” where replacement is not reasonably available and loss is not fully measurable or compensable by money damages, supporting a finding of irreparable harm.
- A successor in interest to a sports franchise may enforce player contract rights when the contract does not bar transfer of the franchise and associated contracts.
- Preliminary injunctive relief requires a sufficient showing on likelihood of success, irreparable harm absent relief, and an equitable balance of hardships; a later-contracting third party with notice may be restrained from enforcing a conflicting contract.

## Conclusion

The court protected the club’s contractual rights through a preliminary negative injunction, barring a uniquely skilled athlete from playing for competing teams during the contract term and preventing a rival team from enforcing a later, conflicting player contract, while securing the restraint with an injunction bond.


Washington Capitols Basketball Club, Inc. v. Barry, 304 F. Supp. 1193 (N.D. Cal. 1969)