Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Declaratory judgment actions are justiciable if there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.
In this case, the league, the National Basketball Association (NBA), sought a declaratory judgment that it may restrain the movement of its franchise, the Los Angeles Clippers (nee San Diego Clippers), and that it may impose a charge upon them for the Clippers' unilateral usurpation of the "franchise opportunity" available in the Los Angeles market. The NBA also sought declaratory judgment on similar grounds against the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission (the Coliseum). The district court, believing the result controlled by the decision in the first Los Angeles Raiders case, dismissed the case upon the Clippers' motion for summary judgment.
Was the contention that there is no "actual controversy" to allow federal jurisdiction over the NBA's request for declaratory judgment meritorious?
The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that there were genuine issues of material facts. The court held that NBA was entitled to pursue its claims, because, contrary to the district court's ruling, NBA’s attempt to restrain its franchise movement was not unlawful as a matter of law. According to the court, a relevant case simply held that in cases such as the present, the rule of reason applied to NBA’s actions. The court then held that there were numerous issues of fact to be resolved. The court held that such factual issues were for the trier of fact to resolve.