A federal judge this week denied a motion to send the Chicago Cubs’ lawsuit against Wrigley View Rooftop—a company that provides 200 guests with a view of neighboring Wrigley Field in exchange for fees—to arbitration. U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman rejected Wrigley View Rooftop’s request that she reconsider her denial in January of the company’s motion to dismiss. 

Last year the Cubs sued Wrigley View Rooftop and company owner Aidan Dunican, claiming that Wrigley View Rooftop engages in illegal conduct by selling seats to watch Cubs games, concerts and other events from an adjacent building. The lawsuit includes claims for misappropriation, unjust enrichment, unfair competition and unauthorized use of Cubs’ trademarks. 

Wrigley View Rooftop denies wrongdoing and insists the dispute must be resolved out-of-court through arbitration. The problem with that argument, Coleman explained, is that the relevant arbitration clause expired in 2023.

That clause stems from the Cubs and rooftop businesses near Wrigley Field, including Wrigley View Rooftop, settling previous litigation back in 2004. The settlement agreements, which contemplated rooftop businesses sharing revenue with the Cubs and contained arbitration clauses, were set to expire in 2023. Those businesses, except for Wrigley View Rooftop, accepted the Cubs’ offers to extend the settlements beyond 2023. 

Last year–after the expiration of the settlement agreement–Wrigley View Rooftop defied the Cubs by selling tickets to games and using Cubs’ trademarks. The company is continuing to sell tickets in the 2025 MLB season and uses the tagline, “the last Wrigley rooftop to be independently owned and operated!”

Wrigley View Rooftop maintains the arbitration language should survive expiration of the settlement agreement. As Wrigley View Rooftop tells it, the dispute is mainly about use of trademarks without permission and whether the Cubs have a right to demand royalties from Wrigley View Rooftop. The company says this dispute concerns a legal right that “accrued or vested” under the settlement agreement, which contemplated royalties in exchange for trademark usage. The Cubs disagree; the team says a plain reading of the settlement agreement makes clear the arbitration language ended when the agreement expired. The idea of contractual rights and restrictions continuing beyond a contract’s expiration doesn’t add up, the team insists.

Coleman agreed with the Cubs, saying she found Wrigley View Rooftop’s argument “unfounded.” After the settlement agreement expired, the judge explained, the Cubs were “not entitled to collect royalties,” and Wrigley View Rooftop was not “entitled to use” Cubs’ trademarks without permission. Along those lines, Coleman noted, the Cubs “do not allege that the expired” settlement provided a right to collect royalties from Wrigley View Rooftop. Instead, the team argues Wrigley View Rooftop “improperly used the trademarks after the expiration of the Settlement Agreement without providing any royalties” to the Cubs.  

According to court filings, pretrial discovery of relevant facts must be completed by the parties by June 12. If the case eventually goes to a jury trial, it could resolve a longstanding property law debate over whether rooftop businesses can lawfully sell seats to watch a live performance taking place in an adjacent and famed building, Wrigley Field, built in 1914.