ST. LOUIS – The city of St. Louis' suit against the National Football League and others over the Ram's return to Los Angeles in 2015 won't be headed into arbitration following an appeals court's ruling earlier this week.
The Rams and team owner E. Stanley Kroenke had argued for arbitration in their appeal from a St. Louis City Circuit Court decision in December, saying provisions reached in agreements when the team moved from Los Angeles for the 1995 season. A three-judge Missouri Eastern District Court of Appeals panel ruled Tuesday, Aug. 21, that it's the NFL's rules, not the Ram's agreement with St. Louis, that are at issue in the case because St. Louis city and county are "explicitly" excluded from the 1995 lease's arbitration clause.
"While the exclusion states that the city and the county may only sue or be sued in Federal District for the Eastern District of Missouri, this supports that the parties to the 1995 lease did not intend for the city and county to arbitrate their claims related to the interpretation, performance, or breach of the 1995 lease, let alone plaintiffs' claims under the NFL Policy," the appeals court said in its 13-page ruling.
Missouri Eastern District Court of Appeals Judge Philip M. Hess
| From court's website
Judge Philip M. Hess wrote the appeals court's ruling in which Chief Judge Lisa P. Page and Judge Roy L. Richter concurred.
St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, along with St. Louis city and county, filed suit in April of last year against the Rams, the NFL and the league's 32 owners, including Kroenke, who is a named defendant in the case. The team and Kroenke cited relocation and lease agreements from more than 20 years ago in asking the appeals court to compel arbitration, following the city circuit court decision denial of its their motion in December.
Those agreements are not in question, Hess wrote in the court's ruling.
"Plaintiffs allege that in reliance on defendants' obligations imposed by the NFL Policy they took action to develop and finance a new stadium complex," Hess wrote. "...Plaintiffs' claims relate to the interpretation, performance, and alleged breach by defendants - not just appellants - of the NFL Policy. There is no need to interpret the 1995 lease and 1995 relocation agreement to resolve plaintiffs' claims."