CLEVELAND — Ohio’s attorney general is asking a federal judge to throw out the Cleveland Browns’ challenge to the state’s so-called Modell law – on new grounds.
In a Friday afternoon court filing, Attorney General Dave Yost said the team’s lawsuit is irrelevant now and should be tossed.
The General Assembly recently rewrote the state law at the heart of the case – a law designed to make it tougher for pro sports teams to leave taxpayer-supported facilities. The updated language only applies to teams planning an out-of-state move.
Lawmakers slipped those changes into the state’s new operating budget, a spending bill that also included a $600 million grant for a new Browns stadium in Brook Park.
RELATED: Lawmakers add change to Modell law to state budget, aiding Browns move to Brook Park
“Through the legislative process, the Browns already attained the result they seek here. … Having done so, they mooted this case. It should be dismissed,” Yost wrote Friday.
The Browns filed their lawsuit in October to challenge the constitutionality of Ohio Revised Code 9.67 – commonly known as the Modell law because it was enacted after Art Modell, a former Browns’ owner, moved the original team to Baltimore in 1996.
RELATED: The Modell law was used before. Here's what happened.
For almost a year now, the Browns and the city of Cleveland, the team’s landlord, have been fighting in court about whether and how the Modell law applies. The Browns sued the city in federal court. In January, the city sued team owner Haslam Sports Group in state court, saying that’s where disputes over the state law belong.
Yost has been critical of the team’s lawsuit since January.
At first, he argued that the legal fight should play out in state court. Now, he’s saying the legislature negated any need for the federal court proceeding.
“When this case began, the Modell Law applied because it applied to a team’s move to anywhere other than the tax-supported facility,” Yost wrote, referring to Huntington Bank Field on the lakefront. “It would have applied to the Browns’ move from Cleveland to Brook Park. The recent amendments to Ohio Rev Code. 9.67 changed that.”
Cleveland’s attorneys also have argued that the team’s federal lawsuit is moot in the wake of the General Assembly’s actions.
But the city is still going after the Browns in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, claiming the team already broke the Modell law – and is violating the terms of its existing lease by laying the groundwork for the Brook Park move.
RELATED: Is the court fight between Cleveland and the Browns over? Not so fast, mayor says.
Late Friday afternoon, the city’s lawyers once again asked Judge David Ruiz to throw out the federal court case.
“This dispute between the Browns and the City of Cleveland is ripe for resolution – but not in a federal forum,” Justin Herdman, a partner at the Jones Day law firm, wrote in the city’s renewed request for a dismissal.
A Browns spokesman did not respond to a request for comment on the new legal filings Friday. But in a recent filing in state court, the team’s lawyers questioned the city’s arguments – and accused the city of using “ambush” tactics and wasting time.
“The Browns are confident that the evidence will show that the lease was designed to keep the Browns at Huntington Bank Field for 30 years, not to hold the team hostage forever,” wrote Anthony White, one of the team’s attorneys.
On Friday, Yost argued that any lingering questions – including whether the changes to the Modell law apply retroactively – should be resolved in state court.
The original law, passed in 1996, required owners of pro sports teams to do one of two things before leaving a publicly subsidized facility: Negotiate an exit deal with the host community. Or give the city or local investors a six-month window to buy the team.
The updated law, which will take effect Sept. 30, says those requirements only apply in situations where teams are looking to leave the state. It also says teams can move freely within the state once their leases are over – regardless of when the lease was signed.
The new wording eliminates the Modell law as a barrier for the Browns, Yost wrote. But “rather than recognize their legislative success, the Browns continue to press forward with this case. … They are asking for an advisory opinion regarding a repealed statute,” he wrote. “It makes no sense to give it to them.”
Judge Ruiz has set the next filing deadline in the federal court case in 30 days.
