CLEVELAND – The FOX 8 I-Team has found the Cleveland Browns asking once more for a federal judge to rule the so-called “Modell Law” unconstitutional.
In a filing late Friday, lawyers representing the Browns wrote,” the Browns seek a concrete, binding declaration that the Modell Law is unconstitutional, invalid and unenforceable under federal law.”
That law, a state of Ohio law, restricts pro sports teams from moving without first giving the city time to find new owners.
The Browns want to move to a dome in Brook Park, and they filed suit in federal court late last year trying to have the Modell ruled unconstitutional.
The city has asked to have the matter dismissed from federal court. Instead, the city wants the matter decided in Cuyahoga County Court.
But, the new filing on behalf of the Browns also accuses the city of merely trying to avoid federal court. Lawyers for the Browns wrote, “Instead, in a transparent attempt to avoid federal court—where the Browns’ constitutional claims belong—the city argues that the Browns are merely asking for an advisory opinion as to what the Modell Law means. Not so.”
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost also filed a motion in U.S. District Court last month backing the city’s arguments while asking that the federal lawsuit filed by the Browns against Cleveland be dismissed.
“As a threshold matter, unanswered questions of Ohio law must be answered before this court can reach Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims. Consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941), this court should abstain from considering those claims until an Ohio court has determined whether and how Ohio Revised Code § 9.67 applies to the facts at hand,” the motion to dismiss filed by Yost states.
Cleveland city law director Mark Griffin released a statement to the I-Team in January when the city’s motion to dismiss was filed.
“The city filed a motion today to dismiss the Haslams’ federal lawsuit, asserting that it was improperly brought before a federal court. We believe that state court is the appropriate venue for addressing disputes related to state laws that protect state taxpayers. By seeking dismissal, our goal is to ensure that this matter is resolved under Ohio law, in Ohio courts. The Modell Law was designed to protect all Ohioans from billionaires who ask for hundreds of millions in taxpayer gifts and then walk away,” stated Griffin. “The city has kept every promise to the Browns. In just the last 12 months, we have won over $150 million in lakefront development grants to support the $350 million already invested in Browns Stadium. The Bibb Administration is committed to protecting our residents’ investments and building a lakefront that is the best in the world.”
The Browns are asking for a hearing in federal court.
“The Modell Law is unconstitutionally vague because of its ambiguous and undefined terms. The terms of the law are so unclear that a person of ordinary intelligence is not provided fair notice about what conduct is forbidden by the statute or how to comply with it. These ambiguities allow, even encourage, arbitrary enforcement by the government,” the motion filed by the Browns Friday states.
Meanwhile, the city’s lawsuit against the Browns in county court is still in the earliest stages. Records show the Browns have been given more time to send in their initial response in that case.
