This week, the City of Cleveland (the City) and the State of Ohio (the State) took several key actions in the battle to prevent the Cleveland Browns from relocating to a domed facility in Brook Park, Ohio. On January 14, 2025, the City filed a lawsuit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas seeking to enforce the Modell Law against the Browns and the Haslam Sports Group (HSG) to prevent their move to Brook Park. A day later, the City filed a motion to dismiss the Browns’ preemptive lawsuit in the Northern District of Ohio. That same day, the State also filed a motion to dismiss the Browns’ lawsuit in the Northern District of Ohio.
Background of the Dispute
As a refresher, the Modell Law, named after the infamous former Browns owner, Art Modell, requires Ohio professional sports teams that receive taxpayer funding for stadiums to either:
1.) Obtain approval to relocate from the political subdivision where the home games are held, or
2.) Provide six-month’s notice and allow the political subdivision or other local parties an opportunity to buy the team before relocation.
The dispute centers around the Browns’ announcement that it intends to build a $2.4 billion, state-of-the-art stadium and entertainment complex in Brook Park, Ohio. The proposed site is approximately 15 miles south of their current home, Huntington Bank Field, located on Cleveland’s lakefront. The Browns’ current lease with the City of Cleveland is set to expire at the end of the 2028 NFL season.
The legal dispute formally began when the Browns filed a preemptive lawsuit on October 24, 2024, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio. On October 31, the State intervened and aligned its legal position with the City. The Browns later filed an amended complaint on November 15, 2024. The amended complaint reiterated the Browns’ claims from its October 24, 2024 complaint, but the Browns updated the complaint to state that it intends to comply with the current term of lease by playing its home games in the City until the lease expires, rather than moving during the term–a reference to its commitment to comply with the lease.
The City’s Complaint
Earlier this week, the City took action and filed its own complaint in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. According to the City’s complaint, the City is attempting to:
prevent the Browns from abandoning the City and public that provided the Browns with a stadium and maintained that stadium through thick and thin–and to ultimately protect the City’s and taxpayers’ past, present, and future investments in the Downtown Cleveland lakefront stadium.
The City alleges that the Browns are attempting to bypass the Modell Law’s requirements by improperly filing a lawsuit in federal court. The complaint mentions HSG’s previous acquisition of the Columbus Crew, which was, in part, due to the Modell Law. But now, HSG and the Browns seek a declaration that the Modell Law is unconstitutional.
The City asserts claims for a violation of the Modell Law and breach of contract and requests a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The City alleges that the Browns and HSG violated the Modell Law by attempting to relocate the Browns to Brook Park without negotiating in good faith regarding the future of the franchise, without the City’s approval and without offering the City or other local parties a reasonable opportunity to purchase the team. It also alleges that by violating the Modell Law, the Browns are in breach of its lease agreement. The City also seeks clarification from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that the Modell Law applies to the Browns’ planned move to Brook Park.
The State’s Motion to Dismiss
The State, as an intervenor-defendant in the Browns’ federal lawsuit, filed its motion to dismiss the Browns’ preemptive lawsuit on January 15, 2025. Notably, the State takes a hard stance in favor of the City.
The State argues that as a threshold matter, the federal court should abstain from considering the Browns’ claims until an Ohio court has determined the constitutionality and breadth of the Modell Law. It also dives into the merits of the case by highlighting that the Browns could have avoided the Modell Law entirely by not accepting taxpayer money. Additionally, the State argues, in part, the law survives the Browns’ constitutional vagueness challenge to the Modell Law since it provides “a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited.” The State argues that the Modell Law existed prior to the Browns’ contract with the City, and thus, the Contract Clause claim fails. According to the State, the Browns’ Dormant Commerce Claus claim should also fail since the Browns’ move is intended to be intrastate, from Cleveland to Brook Park, and because the City acts as a market participant, each making the Dormant Commerce Clause inapplicable.
The City’s Motion to Dismiss
The City’s Motion to Dismiss, also filed on January 15, 2025, is less about the merits of the Complaint, and more about the procedure of the litigation. The City focuses on the Northern District’s alleged lack of jurisdiction over the Browns’ claims and the importance of the Modell Law being fully litigated in state court prior to federal review–a legal principle referred to as abstention.
As its threshold matter, the City argues that since the Browns do not plead or invoke diversity jurisdiction and the Browns’ claims under the Declaratory Judgment Act should be dismissed because the Declaratory Judgment Act allegedly does not create subject matter jurisdiction on its own, and therefore, the Browns’ lawsuit should be litigated in state court. The City’s Motion to Dismiss also notes that the Browns lack standing because the Browns have not suffered an injury as the Modell Law has not been officially enforced against the Browns, and as a result, the City claims that the Browns are merely requesting an advisory opinion. Finally, the City notes that even if the Northern District has jurisdiction, the case does not belong in federal court since “anticipatory actions” filed in federal court before federal court are consistently dismissed by federal courts.
Conclusion
The City’s lawsuit and motion to dismiss reinforces the stance it has taken in the media over the last six months to protect its economy and growth downtown. The City also notes that the Browns’ departure from downtown would have a negative economic impact of at least $30 million in annual economic output and approximately $11 million in tax revenue. Year to year, the City claims that these losses would affect downtown businesses, jobs, and tourism that rely on the Browns and events held at Huntington Bank Field.
Despite the local politics involved, the State’s stance highlights its intent to support the City. The State’s position is that the Modell Law was enacted to prevent such moves of professional sports teams from outside the limits of the political subdivision itself–here, a 15-mile trip down I-71 from Cleveland to Brook Park.
Ultimately, the City, State, and HSG’s respective chess moves are underscoring the importance of not just the merits of the claims but what court should hear those merits. By preemptively filing in federal courts, the Browns appear to prefer an appointed federal judge to hear its claims, while the City, with filing in state court, appears to prefer an elected state judge to decide the fate of the Browns in Downtown Cleveland.
For more information on this case, contact KJK’s Litigation attorneys, TJ Hunt ((TJH@kjk.com; 216.736.7284) or Kyle Stroup (KDS@kjk.com; 216.736.7284).