Months after the NCAA settled the medical monitoring claims of a class of former athletes at disparate member institutions, two of the class members are pursuing negligence claims against the NCAA in separate actions. Derek Owens and Kyle Solomon are awaiting the scheduling of their trials. Despite the plaintiffs being part of the consolidated complaint in Arrington v. NCAA and having all of their complaints lumped into that action, these negligence claims will proceed separately and how they unfold will have some bearing upon the future of courts’ perception of liability on the NCAA’s part as far as athlete healthcare goes.
Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/2020/01/21/owens-and-solomon-carrying-on-negligence-claims-against-ncaa/
In July 2017, retired NFLer, Marvin Washington, along with four other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit against then Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the DEA in the Southern District of New York. The other plaintiffs in the case were two young children and a military veteran who relied on medical marijuana to treat chronic conditions. In view of legalization in numerous states, Washington and his fellow plaintiffs sought to have marijuana decriminalized at the national level. The lawsuit makes for interesting and educational reading demonstrating how marijuana came to find itself at the top of the government’s Schedule I drug classification.
Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/2020/01/20/ex-nflers-cannabis-lawsuit-may-be-headed-to-the-supreme-court/
The Blitz is back with a makeover. We’re now counting down the ten most intestimg sports law stories from the past week. Check them out:
10 Cigna Can’t Use Privilege To Shield Info In NFL ERISA Suit
9. Court Dismisses Antitrust Claim, Finding League Was Within Its Rights to Limit Number of Teams
8. Avenatti Case Alleges Settlement Between Nike and Kaepernick
7. NFL, Raiders Argue to Dismiss Oakland’s Relocation Lawsuit
Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/2020/01/19/the-blitz-is-back/
A recently filed document in attorney Michael Avenatti’s indictment and pending trial may shed light on Kaepernick’s endorsement deal with Nike. In a document filed by Avenatti’s attorney, Scott A. Srebnick seeking to compel testimony by Mark Geragos, who represented Kaepernick in his grievance against the NFL, states that Geragos also procured a settlement for Kaepernick with Nike. This would appear to align with Kaepernick’s major endorsement deal as face of the #JustDoIt campaign.
Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/2020/01/18/avenatti-case-alleges-settlement-between-nike-and-kaepernick/
In June 2019 University of Utah Economist Ted Tatos and Don Comrie of Neurolabs released a disturbing scholastic paper based on research conducted from documents released by the University of North Carolina as the result of academic fraud. “Cognitive Disorders Among Incoming College Football Athletes: Legal and Medical Implications of Undisclosed Inclusion in Concussion Research”, published in The Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity.
Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/2020/01/16/concussion-research-for-sale/
Would you go to law school if you only had a 2% chance of practicing law after you graduated? Oh, and you’d be lucky to practice law 3 years, and then you’d need to start over and find a different career. What about med school? Nobody would go to med school with only a 2% chance of practicing medicine for 3 years and then looking for another job. So why would anyone go to college, majoring in what I call Eligibility Studies, when even the NCAA admits there is less than a 2% chance of making the NFL, keeping in mind that the average career length is less than 3 years and is getting shorter.
Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/2020/01/15/maurice-clarett-be-ready-when-recess-is-over/
In the first three parts of this series we took a deep-dive into three questions that will determine the City of Oakland’s antitrust standing. In this, our final installment we’ll take a look at the NFL’s relocation policy and whether it constitutes a contract with Host Cities such as Oakland.
Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/2020/01/13/is-the-nfls-relocation-policy-a-contract-part-4/
Washington, D.C. has been one of the friendliest places for Major League Baseball’s interest and that has nothing to do with the fact that the current World Series champion calls the District home. It’s because the highest levels of the federal government in the United States call that place home. MLB wants to envoke that spirit of charity to protect its almighty leverage once again.
On Thursday, MLB asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stay a ruling made by a three-member panel of the same court that upheld a lower court’s ruling to certify a class of former minor-league baseball players.
Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/2020/01/13/mlb-takes-a-swing-at-scotus-review-of-minor-league-players-class-certification/
In Part 1 of our deep-dive on the Oakland lawsuit, we covered whether Oakland had properly alleged an antitrust claim and in Part 2, if Oakland was the proper plaintiff. In Part 3 we examine the question, “Did Oakland suffer a direct injury?” as we look at the NFL’s arguments surrounding the NFL’s motion to dismiss.
Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/2020/01/13/will-oakland-survive-the-nfls-motion-to-dismiss-part-3/
On Friday the NFL responded to the City of Oakland in a bid for early dismissal of the anti-trust lawsuit related to the Raiders relocation to Las Vegas. In Part 1 I looked at the NFL’s claims that Oakland did not properly allege injury under anti-trust law, which was a requirement of Judge Spero’s order dismissing Oaklands first complaint with leave to amend. In the amended complaint, attorney Jim Quinn, representing Oakland went into great detail outlining the NFL’s cartel-like structure and how that anti-competitive structure had damaged the city in its efforts to retain the Raiders, or at least have a viable chance of hosting another NFL team. I felt the clarifications and case law cited in Oakland’s prior reply brief were strong enough to survive the NFL and Raiders’ arguments to dismiss in that area, but other elements remain on the table.
Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/2020/01/12/part-2-will-oakland-survive-nfls-motion-to-dismiss/