ILNews

Judge tosses suit against NCAA that reads ‘like a press release’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge on Friday dismissed several former college athletes’ attempt to bring a class-action lawsuit against Indianapolis-based NCAA, writing in a 25-page order that the complaint “reads more like a press release than a legal filing.” The judge left open the possibility that an antitrust claim may survive.

Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued the ruling in John Rock, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 1:12-cv-1019-JMS-DKL. Rock contended the NCAA’s prohibition of four-year scholarships and limits on scholarships constituted illegal restraints of trade. The suit also alleged the NCAA constituted an illegal college sports monopoly.

Rock was a quarterback at Gardner-Webb University whose scholarship was not renewed after a change in coaches at the North Carolina school. Rock claims in the suit that he was assured a four-year scholarship as long as he remained eligible.

Other student athletes named in the suit are former college basketball and hockey players Tim Steward and Kody Collins. “Mr. Collins is dismissed from this action for failing to allege direct antitrust injury,” Magnus-Stinson wrote. “Although the court concludes that Mr. Rock and Mr. Steward have standing to pursue their claims, the Court grants the NCAA’s motion to dismiss.”

Magnus-Stinson dismissed with prejudice allegations regarding Division III prohibition on athletics-based financial aid but left open an avenue to a possible antitrust case for the same attorneys who filed Agnew v. NCAA, 1:11-CV-0293, which was dismissed by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2011.

“I am pleased that … the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted the NCAA motion to dismiss the Rock v. NCAA case involving the NCAA grant in aid rules,” NCAA general counsel Donald Remy said in a statement.

“Hopefully, after having both Agnew and now Rock dismissed, these same attorneys will find a more appropriate cause.”

Seattle-based Hagens Berman LLP brought the suit that was represented locally by Price Waicukauski & Riley LLC. A message seeking comment from Hagens Berman was not immediately returned.

Magnus-Stinson’s order opens with an observation that the NCAA’s bylaws at issue in Rock were the same as those contested in Agnew. “As the poignant refrain from a popular duet cover laments, here we go again,” the judge wrote.

“If counsel wants this claim to proceed, the moment has come to spend the time and undertake the potentially complicated task of the ‘proper identification’ of a relevant market,” she concluded in giving Rock 28 days to amend the antitrust complaint.

“Mr. Rock’s amended complaint should not make conclusory legal allegations or cite cases but, instead, should provide a short and plain statement detailing the necessary factual allegations supporting a plausible claim for relief. Failure to do so will result in the Court denying the motion to amend and closing this case.”

The Rock suit is one of several legal challenges the NCAA faces. In an Indiana Lawyer interview in November, Remy said he was confident that the suit, like Agnew, would be dismissed. “It was the same theory, the same principles, and I think we’ll see the same results,” Remy said.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT