Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: PGA Tour denied transfer of venue in caddies’ uncompensated sponsor endorsement suit, (Jul 27, 2015)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

In a class action suit by professional golf caddies over their uncompensated endorsement services provided to tour sponsors, the PGA Tour was unable to show that the transfer of the suit to the Middle District of Florida was warranted for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or would promote the interests of justice, the federal district court in San Francisco has held (Hicks v. PGA Tour, Inc., July 24, 2015, Chhabria, V.).

PGA Tour, Inc. organizes and promotes three tours of professional golf tournaments held across the United States. Spectators in attendance view the tournament live, and tournaments are generally televised, broadcast on the Internet, and viewed on video-on-demand platforms. William Michael Hicks and Kenneth Harms are caddies for professional golfers who compete in professional golf tournaments organized and promoted by PGA Tour, Inc.

In February 2015, Hicks and Harms filed a putative class action complaint against the PGA Tour, alleging that they were compelled to wear the logos of corporate tour sponsors without compensation during professional golf tournaments promoted by the PGA Tour. The PGT Tour moved to transfer venue to the Middle District of Florida.

The judge determined that (1) the conduct of which the caddies complain has occurred in the Northern District of California as well as other districts around the country, (2) the district has no less an interest in the proper adjudication of the plaintiffs’ claims than does the Middle District of Florida, and (3) all of the plaintiffs have chosen to file their lawsuit in California.

Moreover, the residence of one plaintiff was less significant than a typical plaintiff, since caddies spend most of their time traveling around the country to work PGA Tour events and the case will likely be adjudicated more quickly in California. Discovery will be no more difficult if the case is located in California because the attorneys for the parties will be traveling around the country to take witness deposition no matter where the case is located. Finally, although PGA Tour employees will be required to travel from Florida to testify if the case goes to trial, the PGA Tour has made no showing that a trial in Northern California would be more inconvenient for third party witnesses than a trial in Florida, the court concluded.

The case is No. 15-cv-00489-VC.

Attorneys: Arthur R. Miller (The Lanier Law Firm) for William Michael Hicks. Anthony J. Dreyer (Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP) for PGA Tour, Inc.

Companies: PGA Tour, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews