Yankees vs Stubhub: Round one goes to the Yankees

Eric Fisher of Sports Business Journal reported a short while ago on Twitter that the Yankees have gotten a temporary restraining order against Stubhub which prevents it, for the time being, from opening a storefront near Yankee Stadium.

Now, I’m not a legal expert like some of my favorite fellow baseball bloggers who all seem to be former lawyers but one in particular, Craig Calcaterra of Hardball Talk, had this to say about the TRO:

A TRO is granted without any kind of hearing or evidence beyond the sworn statement of the plaintiff, in this case the Yankees, saying that they will be irreparably harmed if the activity at issue isn’t stopped. A hearing will be held in the next few days, however, as to whether or not StubHub should be enjoined from doing so for a longer period. The TRO, in fact, could have been issued without StubHub even being present in the judges chambers.

Let’s get ready to rumblllllllllllllle!

Stacey is co-Editor-in-Chief of It's About The Money and is co-host of the It's About The Yankees, Stupid podcast. When she's not blogging about baseball, she's blogging about the New York Knicks and when she's not doing either of those things, she's tweeting about General Hospital and her cats.

4 thoughts on “Yankees vs Stubhub: Round one goes to the Yankees

  1. Sherm

    He's only partly right. The rules in New York were changed several years ago in that TRO's are no longer entertained, except in rare instances not applicable here, without the other side having the opportunity to be heard as well. Stub Hub's lawyers most likely had the opportunity to oppose the application and to present their side to the Judge.

    Having said that, the granting of a TRO is pretty meaningless and indicative of very little. Conversely, had the Judge denied the Yankees' request for the TRO, that would most likely mean that the Yankees had no chance of getting a preliminary injunction.

    • Sherm

      PS — I just read the e-filed affirmation filed by the Yankees' attorney, and I was correct. Stubhub was in fact notified in advance and given the opportunity to be heard. Unfortunately, the Judge's Order has not been e-filed, so I cannot provide any further particulars.

      • ProfRobert

        Thanks for checking eCourts, Sherm, I was just about to do that. TRO's without notice are rarer than they were (NY state court used to give them out like candy at Halloween), but their not bordering on extinction. Basically, to get one, you need to allege that the other side would likely defeat the purpose of the TRO (like moving funds out of a bank account you want restrained) if it had notice before the TRO was entered.

        • ProfRobert

          I mean "THEY'RE," dammit. Sorry, it's been a long day of litigating.

Comments are closed.