Gionfriddo

Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball

Good Law
114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 307·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 3089·2001 Daily Journal DAR 12785·94 Cal. App. 4th 400·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10289
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 10, 2001A091113, A092225California6,086 words

Opinion

Opinion

Simons, J.

By an order separately filed, we consolidate the appeals from two related actions heard in the Superior Courts of Alameda and San Francisco Counties. In part I of this decision, we consider plaintiffs’ appeal from a judgment entered in the Alameda action, following the granting of a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendants Major League Baseball, Major League Baseball Properties, Inc., and The PHoenix Communications Group, Inc. (hereafter collectively Baseball). Resolution of this appeal requires, in part, a reconciliation of the interests protected by plaintiffs’ common law and statutory rights of publicity and the constitutional right to free expression. We affirm the trial court’s decision permitting Baseball’s use of plaintiffs’ names, images and likenesses, and the trial court’s determination that the two causes of action for declaratory relief were not supported by sufficient evidentiary facts and did not present an actual controversy between the parties.

In part II, an unpublished portion of this decision, we consider the appeal of plaintiff Albert F. Gionfriddo from the trial court’s judgment and the order granting Baseball’s motion for attorney’s fees…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.