CLEVELAND, Ohio— Attorneys for Cleveland and the Ohio attorney general’s office on Tuesday asked a judge to block the Browns from updating the team’s lawsuit over a planned move from the city to Brook Park.
The attorneys also said in the filing they would seek sanctions against the team’s counsel for attempting to file an updated lawsuit, which if granted, could send the months-old lawsuit back to square one.
“The Browns fail to explain the changes they are trying to make or why they need them now — itself a reason to deny the motion,” wrote Justin Herdman, an attorney for the city. “And to the extent that their reason can be gleaned, it is improper.”
The filing came as a response to the Browns asking U.S. District Judge David Ruiz to update their lawsuit over the Modell Law, a state law that puts certain restrictions on pro sports teams leaving their cities. The Browns are seeking a ruling that the law unconstitutional.
The proposed update included some new arguments over why the case should be heard in U.S. District Court in Cleveland, instead of Cuyahoga County Common Pleas, where the city has filed a lawsuit against the Browns to invoke the Modell Law.
The Modell Law, passed after the Browns moved to Baltimore after the 1995 season, requires a pro sports team to offer the franchise up for sale before being allowed to move from an area that supported the team with taxpayer money.
The Browns have said they want to leave their downtown stadium at the end of the 2028 season and build a $2.4 billion covered stadium in Brook Park.
Bridget Coontz, the chief counsel for the attorney general’s office, wrote in her argument that the Browns shouldn’t be allowed to amend the lawsuit because the team already filed an updated complaint, and “they still run headlong into the same problems faced by versions one and two.”
Coontz wrote that if Ruiz, the federal judge, does allow the team to update the accusations, he should put the case on hold until Cleveland’s lawsuit against the Browns in Common Pleas is decided.
“Amending the complaint to permit claims that must ultimately be dismissed is futile,” she wrote.
Herdman argued for the city that the Browns only now realize the city’s arguments in asking a judge to dismiss the case were correct and that the team wants to restart the process.
He argued that an updated lawsuit at this point in the case is procedurally incorrect.
Herdman also wrote that the city believes sanctions against Browns attorneys are warranted and that “the city intends to seek them.” He wrote that the Browns opposition to the city’s request the lawsuit be tossed out was based on “frivolous grounds,” as the team’s process through the litigation has “unreasonably multiplied the proceedings.”
In a separate filing on Tuesday in Common Pleas Court, Herdman argued that Common Pleas Judge Laren Moore should toss out the Browns’ request to pause that case while the federal case proceeds.
Adam Ferrise covers federal courts atcleveland.com and The Plain Dealer. You can find his workhere.