Top Menu

Maricopa County Files to Dismiss D-Backs Lawsuit

Arizona Diamondbacks

In a motion filed on Friday, Maricopa County requested that the Superior Court dismiss a previous lawsuit from the Arizona Diamondbacks. The county is instead hoping that the matter, which stems from a dispute over maintenance to Chase Field, can be settled via out-of-court arbitration.

Last month, the D-Backs filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court over their agreement for Chase Field. The team has said that the county has failed to fulfill its obligations to cover deferred maintenance at the ballpark, and sought to break its agreement at the facility.

The terms of the deal between the two sides require the Diamondbacks to remain at Chase Field until 2028. The lease also stipulates that the team cannot engage in talks about a new facility with another entity until 2024.

In filing the recent motion, the county says that arbitration is how the issue between itself and the D-Backs should be resolved. However, the D-Backs claim that Maricopa County has failed to cover its responsibilities concerning the ballpark and has not cooperated with the team.  More from the Mohave Valley Daily News:

“What we have here is a landlord-tenant disagreement,” [county public information officer Fields] Mosley said.

The county contends that the stadium agreement originally signed in 1996 requires out-of-court arbitration to settle such disputes.

In a statement provided to Cronkite News, Diamondbacks attorney Leo Beus said the county is simply trying to avoid a public hearing on the lawsuit.

“There was absolutely no cooperation from the county and they made no attempts to resolve the issues facing the obvious shortfall they had created,” Beus said. “Now, they would like to avoid a public hearing on our lawsuit and meet in private, as we had done in the past to no avail. (Attorney for the county Grady) Gammage clearly identifies the County Stadium District as the landlord and the Diamondbacks as the tenant, and this landlord has made it crystal clear both publicly and privately that it cannot uphold its responsibilities to its tenant.”

Last year, the dispute between the two sides made headlines as the team cited a figure of $187 million in deferred maintenance that needed to be addressed.

RELATED STORIES: D-Backs Sue Over Chase Field AgreementChase Field Sale ScratchedChase Field Could be ReplacedDeadline Extended for Chase Field Sale2010 Appraisal: Chase Field Worth $45 Million; Will D-Backs Exercise Veto Over Chase Field Sale?Maricopa County Debates Sale of Chase Field to Investors; Drama in the DesertDiamondbacks: Improve Chase Field or We Will Leave

, , , ,