Case Summaries
Sports Law
[09/02]
Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Ltd, P'Ship
In plaintiff's copyright infringement suit against the Baltimore Ravens football organization and National Football League entities for their unauthorized copying of a Ravens team logo, drawn by plaintiff, that was used for three seasons as the team's official symbol, district court's determination that defendants' depictions of the logo in season highlight films and in the Ravens corporate lobby were fair use, in entering judgment against the plaintiff is reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded where: 1) because defendants cannot establish a fair use defense for the depictions of the logo in the highlight films, where the logo use is nontransformative and commercial, district court's judgment on this matter is reversed; 2) defendants' claim that plaintiff's request for injunctive relief against these acts of infringement is precluded is rejected and on remand, district court is directed to consider whether an injunction is appropriate; and 3) district court's finding of fair use as to the depictions of the logo in the Ravens corporate lobby, where team history is portrayed, free of charge, is affirmed.
[08/16]
Adams v. Del. Harness Racing Comm'n
In an appeal from an order of the Delaware Harness Racing Commission claiming that it improperly sanctioned a horse trainer after his horses tested positive for a prohibited drug, the order is affirmed where: 1) the Commission did not deprive petitioner of a fair and impartial hearing; and 2) the Commission was lenient with petitioner because it treated all three offenses as first offenses and imposed the minimum penalties.
[07/23]
Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp.
In plaintiff's antitrust suit against a tire supplier competitor and a motorsports sanctioning body, arising from the adoption of the so-called "single tire rule" by various sanctioning bodies in the sport of dirt oval track racing as well as the exclusive supply contracts between the sanctioning bodies and the defendant tire supplier, district court's grant of defendants' motions for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) a general rule is adopted that the Sherman Act does not forbid sanctioning bodies and other sport-related organizations from freely adopting exclusive equipment requirements, so long as such organizations otherwise possess, in good faith, sufficient pro-competitive or business justifications for their actions; 2) the district court was correct to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants because of plaintiffs' failure to meet the antitrust injury requirement; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion on rejecting a last minute attempt to amend a pleading for the fourth time.
[07/22]
US v. Thomas
Cyclist Tammy Thomas's convictions for three counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice are affirmed where: 1) the jury could reasonably have concluded from all this testimony that defendant's grand jury testimony that she never received any "other products" was not literally true; 2) a reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant understood the question in count three of the indictment as the government understood it and that she answered falsely based on this understanding; and 3) there was sufficient evidence for the jury reasonably to conclude that defendant did not offer literally true answers in the exchange charged in count four of the indictment.
[07/16]
George v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
In plaintiffs' proposed nationwide class action against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and Ticketmaster, alleging that defendants operated illegal lotteries to sell and distribute tickets for certain Division I championship tournaments, district court's dismissal of all claims is reversed and remanded where: 1) plaintiffs have alleged all elements of a lottery as they paid a per-ticket or per-entry fee (consideration) to enter a random drawing (chance) in hopes of obtaining scarce, valuable tickets (a prize); 2) because plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that the NCAA conducted a lottery, the bona fide business transaction exception to the statutory definition of gambling has no effect; 3) the district court erred in holding that the doctrine of in pari delicto bars plaintiffs from seeking relief from court; and 4) district court's order of dismissal must be reversed as to all counts remaining in plaintiffs' second amended complaint.
[06/25]
Deutscher Tennis Bund v. ATP Tour, Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against the ATP Tour, an organizer of worldwide men's professional tennis circuit, claiming that the ATP Tour's reorganization to revitalize its popularity violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and constituted a breach of the directors' fiduciary duties, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) the jury verdict on the Sherman Act section 1 claim is affirmed as the plaintiffs failed to prove the relevant market; and 2) district court's judgment as a matter of law dismissing the breach of duty of loyalty claim against a director is affirmed as neither he individually, nor the ATP Board of Directors as a whole, were materially self-interested when they voted in favor of the reorganization plan.
[06/11]
US v. Bonds
In the government's appeal from various adverse evidentiary rulings in the Barry Bonds perjury prosecution, the orders are affirmed where: 1) the district court finding properly focused on the record of untrustworthiness of trainer Greg Anderson in excluding his testimony; 2) the court correctly ruled that the government failed to show that certain statements by Anderson were authorized by Bonds, in excluding those statements; 3) there was sufficient basis in the record to support the district court's conclusion that Anderson acted as an independent contractor rather than an employee; and 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit certain log sheets as evidence that the samples listed were Bonds'.
[05/24]
American Needle, Inc. v. Nat'l Football League
In an antitrust action challenging the NFL's grant to Reebok of an exclusive license to create apparel incorporating the NFL's intellectual property, the Seventh Circuit's affirmance of summary judgment for defendants is reversed where the alleged conduct related to licensing of intellectual property constituted concerted action that was not categorically beyond the coverage of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
[05/19]
Mayer v. Belichick
In a suit brought by a New York Jets season ticket-holder against the New England Patriots, its head coach Bill Belichick, and the NFL, claiming various causes of action related to the Patriot's secret videotaping of their opponent's signals, known as the "Spygate" scandal, district court's order dismissing the amended complaint is affirmed as plaintiff suffered no cognizable injury to a legally protected right or interest.
[05/06]
Spiegel v. Schulmann
In an action claiming that defendants violated the anti-retaliation provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state laws by terminating plaintiffs as karate instructors, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) the district court properly concluded that there is no individual liability for retaliation claims brought under the ADA; and 2) the district court correctly determined that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). However, the judgment is vacated in part where the district court needed to consider in the first instance whether obesity was a disability under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
[03/01]
Media Techs. Licensing, LLC. v. Upper Deck Co.
In a patent infringement suit involving patents related to memorabilia cards, district court's conclusion that the patents are invalid for obviousness is affirmed where: 1) defendants have met the burden of showing that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to attach a sports-related item instead of those items attached in the prior art references; and 2) secondary objective evidence also fails to establish non-obviousness.
[02/08]
Mansourian v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and Title IX action against a university arising after the university required women on the co-ed wrestling team to compete against men under men's rules, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) plaintiffs were not required to give the university notice of, and an opportunity to rectify, the specific violation to make out a Title IX claim; 2) the record did not contain undisputed facts showing a history and continuing practice of program expansion that was responsive to women's interests; and 3) as plaintiffs were students and therefore subject to the policy that allegedly discriminated on the basis of sex at the time they filed their complaint, their section 1983 claim was not time-barred.
[12/11]
Kentucky Speedway, LLC v. Nat'l Ass'n of Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc.
In an action against NASCAR and an affiliated company that owns multiple racetracks, alleging violation of federal antitrust laws by not sanctioning a Sprint Cup race at plaintiff's racetrack and preventing them from purchasing other racetracks that already host such a race, summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding two experts' reports and deposition testimonies as being unreliable under Daubert; 2) without expert testimony, plaintiff lacks the ability to define the relevant markets necessary to succeed on its claims; and 3) plaintiff cannot demonstrate that NASCAR and the affiliate are legally capable of conspiring with each other or that its failure to obtain a Sprint Cup race constitutes an antitrust injury.
[11/25]
Myers v. Lutsen Mountains Corp.
In a tort action arising out of injuries sustained by plaintiff while skiing on defendant's mountain, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the language of the release signed by plaintiff expressly and unambiguously excluded from its coverage claims arising from reckless or intentional acts, and the district court correctly found that the release was not ambiguous; and 2) the release did not violate public policy because the service offered by defendant was not necessary and could have been obtained elsewhere.
[11/13]
Wagner v. Live Nation Motor Sports, Inc.
In a tort action arising out of a motorcycle crash, denial of defendant's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law is reversed where: 1) a plaintiff may not establish wanton conduct by satisfying the notice or knowledge element of the tort as to one risk -- e.g., a broad generalized risk -- and the second element of indifference of that risk to a differently defined risk -- e.g., the specific risk that caused the accident at issue; and 2) even if plaintiff had put on evidence that defendant knew that a certain part of the motorcycle race at issue was dangerous, plaintiff did not show that defendant was "completely indifferent" to that danger.
