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. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  2. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  3. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

  4. For some strange reason this story, like many on this ezine that question the powerful, seems to have been released in two formats. Prior format here: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263 That observed, I must note that it is quite refreshing that denizens of the great unwashed (like me) can be allowed to openly question powerful elitists at ICE MILLER who are on the public dole like Selby. Kudos to those at this ezine who understand that they cannot be mere lapdogs to the powerful and corrupt, lest freedom bleed out. If you wonder why the Senator resisted Selby, consider reading the comments here for a theory: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263

  5. Why is it a crisis that people want to protect their rights themselves? The courts have a huge bias against people appearing on their own behalf and these judges and lawyers will face their maker one day and answer for their actions.

ADVERTISEMENT