Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball (2001)

ALBERT F. GIONFRIDDO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL et al., Defendants and Respondents.

[No. A092225. First Dist., Div. Five. Dec. 10, 2001.]

PETER J. COSCARART et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL et al., Defendants and Respondents.

[Opinion certified for partial publication. fn. *]

(Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. 983613, David A. Garcia, Judge and Superior Court of Alameda County, No. 764736-5, Demetrios P. Agretelis, Judge.)

(Opinion by Simons, J., with Jones, P.J., and Stevens, J., concurring.)

COUNSEL

Coudert Brothers, Ronald Katz, William N. Hebert and Jeffrey G. Benz for Plaintiff and Appellant in No. A091113 and for Plaintiffs and Appellants in No. A092225.

Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin, Martin R. Glick, Daniel B. Asimow, Jeffrey E. Faucette and Peter J. Droback for Defendants and Respondents Major League Baseball Properties, Inc., The PHoenix Communications Group, Inc., and specially appearing for Major League Baseball.

Elizabeth W. Scott for Defendant and Respondent Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. [94 Cal. App. 4th 404]

OPINION

SIMONS, J.

By an order separately filed, we consolidate the appeals from two related actions heard in the Superior Courts of Alameda and San Francisco Counties. In part I of this decision, we consider plaintiffs' fn. 1 appeal from a judgment entered in the Alameda action, following the granting of a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendants Major League Baseball, Major League Baseball Properties, Inc., and The PHoenix Communication Group, Inc. (hereafter collectively Baseball). Resolution of this appeal requires, in part, a reconciliation of the interests protected by plaintiffs' common law and statutory rights of publicity and the constitutional right to free expression. We affirm the trial court's decision permitting Baseball's use of plaintiffs' names, images and likenesses, and the trial court's determination that the two causes of action for declaratory relief were not supported by sufficient evidentiary facts and did not present an actual controversy between the parties. fn. 2

In part II of this decision, we consider the appeal of plaintiff Albert F. Gionfriddo from the trial court's judgment and the [94 Cal. App. 4th 405] order granting Baseball's motion for attorney's fees in the San Francisco action. Gionfriddo contends that Baseball did not qualify as the "prevailing party" in this case because he dismissed this action for reasons unrelated to the merits of his case, before the merits of the case were finally decided, and with Baseball's cooperation. We conclude Baseball prevailed because it realized its objectives in contesting the San Francisco action and, therefore, we affirm.

I

A092225: THE ALAMEDA ACTION

A. Factual and Procedural Background

The material facts underlying the summary judgment motion are not in dispute. Plaintiffs were four professional baseball players, who played in the major leagues for different periods between 1932 and 1948. Plaintiffs were paid for their performances during each of these seasons.

Defendant Major League Baseball is an unincorporated association whose members include the Major League Baseball Clubs (Clubs). The Clubs acted collectively to create the Office of the Commissioner which, in turn, produced and distributed media guides to the press at All-Star and World Series games.

Defendant Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. (MLBP), is a limited agent for each of the Clubs for certain purposes involving the use of the Clubs' trademarks. MLBP licenses the use of each Club's right to the game-related images of its current and former players. MLBP produces certain print and video publications including All-Star and World Series programs of its own. It also owns and controls the official Web site of Major League Baseball found at