Anaheim Will Challenge the Angels in Court

The Angels could experience their next victory or defeat in court as soon as Thursday, when the city of Anaheim hopes a judge will grant its request to stop the team from renaming itself the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

City attorneys plan to notify the Angels today that they must defend themselves in Orange County Superior Court, as the city seeks a temporary restraining order that would force the team to remain the Anaheim Angels for now. The city would like the case to be heard -- and ruled on, if possible -- Thursday.

Whatever the outcome, the city also intends to file a lawsuit, contending the name change -- and removal of the city name from merchandise and in marketing -- violates the stadium lease. That case would produce a definitive ruling on the name issue.

If a court finds the Angels have breached their contract, Anaheim could terminate the lease, evict the Angels and collect $15 million, plus damages. But city spokesman John Nicoletti said Anaheim wanted to enforce the lease, not terminate it.

Of the 3,500 deposits the Angels had taken for new season tickets, Angel spokesman Tim Mead said, fewer than 100 accounts had been canceled since Monday’s announcement of the name change. The team has lost only one current season-ticket holder because of the change, he said, although the renewal deadline is not until Jan. 14.

Mead said the team had received 540 e-mails and 200 to 300 calls, the majority in opposition. An e-mail sent by a team publicist asking other clubs to refer to the Angels as “Los Angeles” instead of “Anaheim” jokingly advised, “If there is any confusion, please do as the rest of our angry Orange County fans and give us a call.”

Commissioner Bud Selig did not return calls Monday and Tuesday. Selig approved the name change, sources said, but he had previously asked Moreno to work with the city rather than fight it.

“We’re monitoring the situation,” Selig’s spokesman, Rich Levin, said Tuesday.

Although legal analysts have suggested both sides should consider a settlement, in lieu of a trial whose outcome could tip on how strictly a judge might interpret the lease requirement that the team name “include the Anaheim name therein,” several observers said the chances of such a deal appeared slim, given that owner Arte Moreno would have to back down or the City Council would have to vote for a Los Angeles name, no matter what enticements the Angels might offer in return.

Chapman University President James Doti, who helped mediate a settlement to the 1996 lease negotiations between the city of Anaheim and the Walt Disney Co., the Angels’ previous owner, said he could not envision middle ground in this case.

“I’m not volunteering my services at this time,” he said. “It looks like it’s at an impasse. In the case of the problem with Disney and the city coming together, it was a multilayered thing, which allowed for a lot of quid pro quo considerations. This is a one-issue kind of thing.”

Mark Gaughan, a season-ticket holder since 1987, works at a Southern California Gas Co. office across the street from the stadium. He said he planned to renew his tickets but that he opposed the name change and had contacted Mayor Curt Pringle on Tuesday to suggest the city explore renaming State College Boulevard as Anaheim Angels Drive in the area surrounding the ballpark.

“I would be glad to host the unveiling ceremony at my office on the corner of Anaheim Angels Drive and Gene Autry Way,” Gaughan wrote.

Terry Notko, a Laguna Niguel resident who recently spent $8.95 to register the domain name Losangelesangelsofanaheim.com in hopes the Angels would adopt the new name and buy him out, said he had not heard from the team. The Angels say they do not plan to change their website from Angelsbaseball.com.

Notko’s site currently has no content. He said he was unsure whether he would maintain the site if no one else wanted it.

“I don’t know if it’s got value to the city or the team,” he said.