Anaheim to Hear Options

The costly dilemma facing the Anaheim City Council today: Find a graceful way out of a longshot lawsuit against the Angels, or approve a million-dollar legal bill in the hope of persuading a jury that the Angels have broken their stadium lease even though a judge says they have not.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter Polos twice has refused to bar the team from changing its name to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and ruled the city has “failed to show a reasonable probability” of winning at trial. City lawyers will brief the council today on the city’s legal options, including the cost of preparing for trial and the chances of winning.

“I would say their chances are small but not necessarily infinitesimal,” said Sheldon Eisenberg, who handles intellectual property and entertainment litigation at Bryan Cave law firm in Santa Monica.

Neither the Angels nor the city have offered to settle the case, sources on both sides said Monday. A trial might not start for months. If the city wins, experts say, a jury could award millions in damages, but it would not be empowered to restore the Anaheim Angels name.

However, Eisenberg said, the ruling in a preliminary hearing typically leads to a resolution before trial.

“The parties usually have enough information to figure out the writing on the wall,” he said.

Polos ruled the Angels have “technically complied” with the lease provision that requires the team name to “include the name Anaheim therein.” He also ruled that the question of whether the new name -- with Los Angeles in front and Anaheim in the rear -- deprived the city of its negotiated benefits “is still open for the court.”

“I think that’s revealing,” said Carl Bjerre, contract law professor at the University of Oregon. “The judge still recognizes compliance with the contract is not necessarily the same thing as compliance with the literal words of the contract.”

In a court filing, the city argues it has presented “uncontradicted evidence” that both parties to the lease -- the city and Disney, then owner of the Angels -- intended to feature the name Anaheim.

Tony Tavares, then the team president, said in a court declaration the lease was worded so Disney could decide whether to use “Anaheim Angels” or “Angels of Anaheim,” not whether to add another city to the name.

However, Anaheim could have protected itself by permitting the team to choose one of those two names but no other, said Robert Jarvis, sports law professor at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. The Angels argue the lease is clear and does not require explanation of what the parties intended, evidence the city contends would show the team violated the so-called “covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” If Polos agrees with the Angels, he can throw out such evidence or instruct a jury not to consider it, Eisenberg said.

“The contract is plain on its face,” Jarvis said. “The reality is, you only get to good faith if you have some real ambiguity. There isn’t any ambiguity.”

Jarvis suggested the council ought to stop defending a poorly written lease.

“I think the city has no shot,” he said. “If I were a taxpayer in that city, I’d be really upset this is being pursued.”

Although Bjerre said the judge has “forecast his decision,” he added that forecasts are subject to change and that the city’s burden is considerable but not impossible.

“If the city lawyers are telling the city, let’s press ahead and not throw in the towel, I think that’s perfectly legitimate advice,” Bjerre said. “That’s not lawyers just trying to prolong things.”