IBJNews

Live Nation seeks dismissal of Murat lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Live Nation Worldwide Inc. is seeking to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Murat Shriners over a naming-rights deal for the Murat Centre in downtown Indianapolis.

The Shriners believe Live Nation, which leases the iconic venue at 502. N. New Jersey St., needed permission to change the facility's name to the Old National Centre, as part of a three-year deal with Old National Bank. The Shriners affiliate that owns the Murat, the Murat Temple Association, filed suit March 26, seeking an injunction to remove signage and receive unspecified damages.

Beverly Hills, Calif.-based Live Nation is represented in the lawsuit by Shawna Eikenberry, a construction and real estate attorney for Indianapolis-based Baker & Daniels. In a brief filed April 14 in Marion Superior Court, Eikenberry said the Murat lease grants "rights that are broad in scope." Eikenberry went on to note that the assocation's complaint "cites no provisions in the lease that prohibit Live Nation from changing signs on its leased premise, or otherwise change the name of the buildings Live Nation has leased. That is because the lease contains no such provisions."

The Murat lease was struck Sept. 1, 1995, and runs for 100 years. It covers the main public spaces within the complex, including the Murat Theatre and Egyptian Room. Eikenberry notes that the lease also covers, "all appurtances, rights, privileges and interest" belonging to or related to the leased areas, or "derived therefrom."

The only naming restriction in the document refers to the 100-year-old Murat Theatre. Live Nation did not change the name of the 2,500-seat theater or the Egyptian Room, so it's in compliance with the lease, Eikenberry said in the brief.

The lease also allows Live Nation to change or add signs to the building, as long as they are legal and are removed at the end of the lease, Eikenberry said. The only time the lease requires Live Nation to seek permission to put up a sign or make other changes to the building, Eikenberry noted, is if there's a change to the "external appearance and structural integrity of the improvement." Otherwise, the lease states, "consent of the lessor shall not be required."

"Changes to both appearance and structural integrity are required in order for Live Nation to need consent," Eikenberry wrote. "MTA has pleaded itself out of court, and its complaint should be dismissed."

Legal experts say the case is likely to come down to the language in the lease.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • I'm no lawyer, but.....
    Seems the lease covers "the main public spaces within the building" and so maybe the promoters should move their sign to "within" the building. Looks to me like the Shriners retain control of all other features of the building. I'll send them my bill.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Really, taking someone managing the regulation of Alcohol and making himthe President of an IVY Tech regional campus. Does he have an education background?

  2. Jan, great rant. Now how about you review the report and offer rebuttal of the memo. This might be more conducive to civil discourse than a wild rant with no supporting facts. Perhaps some links to support your assertions would be helpful

  3. I've lived in Indianapolis my whole and been to the track 3 times. Once for a Brickyard, once last year on a practice day for Indy 500, and once when I was a high school student to pick up trash for community service. In the past 11 years, I would say while the IMS is a great venue, there are some upgrades that would show that it's changing with the times, just like the city is. First, take out the bleachers and put in individual seats. Kentucky Motor Speedway has individual seats and they look cool. Fix up the restrooms. Add wi-fi. Like others have suggested, look at bringing in concerts leading up to events. Don't just stick with the country music genre. Pop music would work well too I believe. This will attract more young celebrities to the Indy 500 like the kind that go to the Kentucky Derby. Work with Indy Go to increase the frequency of the bus route to the track during high end events. That way people have other options than worrying about where to park and paying for parking. Then after all of this, look at getting night lights. I think the aforementioned strategies are more necessary than night racing at this point in time.

  4. Talking about congestion ANYWHERE in Indianapolis is absolutely laughable. Sure you may have to wait in 5 minutes of traffic to travel down BR avenue during *peak* times. But that is absolutely nothing compared to actual big cities. Indy is way too suburban to have actual congestion problems. So please, never bring up "congestion" as an excuse to avoid development in Indianapolis. If anything, we could use a little more.

  5. Oh wait. Never mind.

ADVERTISEMENT