198556565
198556565
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
CITY OF CLEVELAND Case No: CV-25-110189
Plaintiff
Judge: LAUREN C MOORE
HASLAM SPORTS GROUP, LLC, ET AL.
Defendant
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY. OSJ
07/10/2025
Page 1 of 1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
CASENO.CV-25-110189
THE CITY OF CLEVELAND,
JUDGE LAUREN C, MOORE
Plaintiff,
v.
HASLAM SPORTS GROUP, LLC, et al.,
OPINION AND JUDGMENT
ENTRY
Defendant.
This case is before the Court on Defendants Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC, and
Haslam Sports Group LLC’s (Browns) Motion to Stay the Action or in the Alternative, Dismiss
the Complaint. The issues have been fully briefed and were argued to the Court on May 20,
2925.
I. MOTION TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS
Defendants filed a motion to stay the Common Pleas proceeding during the pendency of the
action they had filed in Federal court captioned Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC. v.
City of Cleveland, No. l:24-cv-01857 (N.D. Ohio 2024). In this federal case, the Browns
disputed the Constitutionality of the Modell law.
On June 30, 2025, the Federal District Court issued in the federal court stating: “Order [non
document] partially granting Defendants’ [51] Motion to Hold Deadlines in Abeyance. At this
time, the Court declines to order Plaintiffs to address the implications of the pending budget
legislation. However, all deadlines are held in abeyance, and this action is stayed until further
Order of the Court. “ Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:24-
cv-01857 (N.D. Ohio June 30,2024).
Because the Federal action is stayed indefinitely, the Court finds that the issue of staying the
Common Pleas case during the pendency of the Federal Court case is moot. Therefore, the
Defendants’ Motion to Stay is denied.
II. MOTION TO DISMISS
In the alternative, the Browns asked that the Complaint be dismissed as unripe.
The Browns have made it clear that they will not fulfill their contractual duties with the City. The
Browns have given notice to the City that they intend to move, they have finalized the purchase
of 167 acres of land in the City of Brookpark, they have given formal notice to the City that they
are leaving, they have engaged in frequent strategy and planning meeting with the Mayor of
Brookpark, they have entered into a partnership with a contractor for the purpose of constructing
a new stadium, and they are procuring financing. The reality is that the move is not a “contigent
future event” Mem. At 14. The Browns have unequivocally announced that it is their intention
to leave the Huntington Bank Stadium and they are moving forward with plans to depart from
Cleveland to Brookpark. The issue of the Browns leaving the City of Cleveland is on longer
hypothetical.
A case ripens when an injury has already happened. Controversy ripens when the plaintiff has
been injured. Reed v. Goertz, 598 U.S. 230, 234 (2023); State v. Maddox, 2022-Ohio-764, 8
(2022); Thomas v. Union Carbide Agr. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985). In the within
case, the City has initiated legal proceedings because actions that have already occurred.
2
The City’s claims are ripe and ready for the Court’s adjudication. They allege “a set of facts,
consistent with the plaintiffs complaint” that “would allow the plaintiff to recover,” and “the
court may not grant a defendant’s motion to dismiss.” Fast Tract Title Servs., Inc. v. Barry,
2024-Ohio-5216, 18 (8th Dist.), quoting O’Brien v. Univ. Comm. Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio
St.2d 242, 245 (1975). The claims should proceed on their merits.
III. CONCLUSION
