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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT