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/current-litigation/marvin-washington-v-william-barr/ex-nflers-cannabis-decriminalization-lawsuit-may-be-heading-to-the-supreme-court/
Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/2020/01/19/the-blitz-is-back/
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/the-blitz/the-blitz-1-19-2020/
Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/2020/01/13/is-the-nfls-relocation-policy-a-contract-part-4/
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/current-litigation/city-of-oakland-v-raiders-nfl/is-the-nfls-relocation-policy-a-contract-part-4/
Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/2020/01/13/will-oakland-survive-the-nfls-motion-to-dismiss-part-3/
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/current-litigation/city-of-oakland-v-raiders-nfl/will-oakland-survive-the-nfls-motion-to-dismiss-part-3/
Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/2020/01/12/part-2-will-oakland-survive-nfls-motion-to-dismiss/
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/current-litigation/city-of-oakland-v-raiders-nfl/will-oakland-survive-nfls-motion-to-dismiss-part-2/
Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/2020/01/11/raiders-nfl-respond-to-oakland-in-a-bid-to-dismiss-part-1/