Ibe v. Jones

Decision Date09 September 2016
Docket NumberNo. 15–10242,15–10242
Citation836 F.3d 516
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
Parties Bruce Ibe; Dean Hoffman; Robert Fortune; Jason McLear, Plaintiffs–Appellants v. Jerral Wayne Jones, also known as Jerry Jones; Blue & Silver, Incorporated; Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Limited; JWJ Corporation; Cowboys Stadium, L.P.; Cowboys Stadium GP, L.L.C.; National Football League, Defendants–Appellees Ken Laffin, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated; David Wanta, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated; Rebecca Burgwin, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs–Appellants v. National Football League; Cowboys Stadium GP, L.L.C.; Cowboys Stadium, L.P.; Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Limited; JWJ Corporation, Defendants–Appellees

Michael J. Avenatti, Esq., Ahmed Ibrahim, Eagan Avenatti, L.L.P., Newport Beach, CA, Christopher Scott Ayres, Esq., Ayres Law Office, Addison, TX, for PlaintiffsAppellants.

Farbod Farnia, Paul A. Grinke, Aaron Abram Martinez, Levi Glenn McCathern, II, McCathern, P.L.L.C., Dallas, TX, for DefendantsAppellees Jerral Wayne Jones, Blue & Silver, Incorporated, Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Limited, JWJ Corporation, Cowboys Stadium, L.P., and Cowboys Stadium GP, L.L.C.

Richard Thaddeus Behrens, Esq., George W. Bramblett, Jr., Esq., Daniel H. Gold, Esq., Anne McGowan Johnson, Matthew Adams McGee, Haynes & Boone, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, William Feldman, Attorney, Haynes & Boone, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for DefendantAppellee National Football League.

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

EDITH H. JONES

, Circuit Judge:

PlaintiffsAppellants (Appellants) purchased tickets to Super Bowl XLV, but were either displaced from their seats, relocated, or had an obstructed view of the field. The majority of affected ticketholders settled with the National Football League (the NFL). Appellants, however, elected to sue, alleging various claims relating to breach of contract and fraud. One group of Appellants sought to certify three separate class actions. Most of Appellants' claims were dismissed before trial, and class certification was denied. Seven individual Appellants went to trial against the NFL and prevailed on breach of contract, but not on fraudulent inducement claims. The impetus for this appeal seems to be the denial of class certification, but Appellants also contest the court's elimination, by dismissal or summary judgment, of several claims. We AFFIRM the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Some will remember Super Bowl XLV as a close game between two legendary franchises, the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers. Others will recall the unexpected ice storm that blanketed the DFW Metroplex the week of the game. Yet the memories of others will involve a multi-issue seating fiasco inside one of the nations' most celebrated venues—Cowboys Stadium.1 This story began back when the North Texas Bid Committee (the “Committee”) submitted its bid to host Super Bowl XLV. Although Cowboys Stadium had not been built, the Committee billed the venue as a new state-of-the-art stadium capable of holding as many as 100,000 fans.

In preparation for the game, the Committee and the NFL entered into a stadium license agreement, which provided that the Committee would bear the responsibility of installing temporary seating to bring the minimum capacity up to 93,221. The agreement provided that the temporary seats be of a suitable standard commensurate with the quality and standards of the NFL Super Bowl viewing experience, including appropriate sightlines and access to concessions stands and restrooms. The agreement also required that all temporary seating be installed and approved by January 30, 2011 (one week before the game).

Cowboys Stadium contracted Seating Solutions to install approximately 13,000 temporary seats for the game. The NFL hired Populous, an architectural design firm, to review and evaluate the installation plans. After Seating Solutions initially submitted its temporary seating plans, Populous noted, inter alia, several sightline issues. As a result, over 1,000 seats were marked as having a “restricted view.” Additional seats were removed from the plans in early January during the quality control process.

Installation of the temporary seating began in the second week of January 2011. On January 30, the deadline for temporary seat installation, seats were yet to be installed or approved by the local safety authorities. Installation continued the week before the game and additional crews were brought to help Seating Solutions complete the work. The work was still ongoing at noon on Super Bowl Sunday. Ultimately, not all of the seats were ready. Approximately 400 ticketholders were left without seats, another 850 or so ticketholders were relocated to seats in other parts of the stadium, and roughly 2,000 ticketholders were delayed in reaching their seats.

The NFL apologized for the seating debacle and offered compensation to all ticketholders who were displaced, relocated, or delayed.2 Nevertheless, two class action lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of Texas against the NFL and the Cowboys franchise defendants (the Cowboys). After consolidation, Appellants' complaint identified three putative classes: (1) the “Displaced Class,” consisting of all ticketholders who were left without seats; (2) the “Relocated/Delayed Class,” consisting of all ticketholders who were relocated to a different seat or were significantly delayed in getting to their seats; and (3) the “Obstructed View Class” consisting of all ticketholders who were assigned seats with obstructed views of the field, the video board, and/or the stadium, but whose tickets were not marked as a restricted view seat. In their first amended complaint, Appellants raised claims for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation by affirmative misrepresentations, and negligent misrepresentation by concealment, and negligence. In addition, three of the Appellants alleged Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”) violations by all Appellees.

The NFL responded by moving to dismiss all the tort claims on the basis of Texas's “economic loss rule,” which bars recovery in tort for economic losses resulting from a party's failure to perform under a contract. The NFL also urged that the remaining claims for fraudulent inducement were not pled with specificity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)

. The Cowboys moved to dismiss all claims against them because they had no contractual relationship with the Appellants.

The district court granted in part the NFL's motion to dismiss and dismissed the Cowboys defendants. The court dismissed with prejudice Appellants' claims of fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation against the NFL as barred by the economic loss rule. The court held that Appellants' theory of fraudulent inducement as to the seats that were not completed by game day was not plausible because the NFL had nothing to gain by tricking fans into purchasing tickets that it did not plan on having available. Quite the contrary, efforts to install the seats were ongoing until hours before the game. The district court accordingly dismissed the Displaced and Relocated ticketholders' fraudulent inducement claims with prejudice.3 The court dismissed the Cowboys, who owed no duty to Appellants because the Cowboys were not a party to the contracts between Appellants and the NFL.

Subsequently, the court denied Appellants' motion for class certification. With respect to the Displaced Class, the court found certification inappropriate because Appellants failed to show that the proposed class satisfied Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(a)

's numerosity requirement, and because individual damages issues predominated over the common legal issue of liability.

Concerning the Relocated Class, the court denied certification because individual issues predominated over the common issues of contract interpretation. The court stated that whether a ticketholder received a replacement seat of “less quality” than his original seat could not be decided on a class-wide basis because every seat is unique and each class member would need to prove individual damages.

Similarly, the court determined that liability and damages for the Obstructed View Class would require predominantly individualized inquiries regarding the extent of the obstruction, if any, and each class member's individual damages. The court also found that this class's fraudulent inducement claim required resolution of predominant individual liability issues: the alleged nature of the misstatement or omission and Appellants' individual reliance.

The district court next granted the NFL's motion for summary judgment as to Appellants' breach of contract and fraudulent inducement claims based on obstructed views of the video board. The court found that there was no contract for an unobstructed view of the video board nor any ambiguity in the ticket term “a spectator seat for the game.” And because Appellants pointed to no evidence outside of the ticket terms that imposed a duty on the NFL to provide an obstructed view of the video board, the district court rejected fraudulent inducement claims as a matter of law.

The parties proceeded to trial on the remaining claims: the breach of contract claims of three displaced ticketholders, two relocated ticketholders, and two obstructed-view ticketholders, and the fraudulent inducement claims of two obstructed-view ticketholders.4 On the seventh day of the trial, the district court granted the NFL's motion for a directed verdict on Appellants' request for punitive damages because no reasonable jury could find fraud by clear and convincing evidence.

On March 12, 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the ticketholders on their breach of contract claims and in favor of the NFL on the remaining fraudulent inducement claims. The jury awarded damages ranging from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
84 cases
  • Earl v. The Boeing Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • September 3, 2021
    ...proving absent class members' standing would be an individualized question that outweighs issues common to the class. See, e.g., Ibe, 836 F.3d at 531; see Crutchfield v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 829 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir. 2016) (“[A] district court's expertise in case managemen......
  • In re Subaru Battery Drain Prods. Liab. Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • March 31, 2021
    ...the sufficiency of legal remedies). 28. The cases Plaintiffs upon which Plaintiffs rely do not support their argument. See Ibe v. Jones, 836 F.3d 516, 525-26 (5th Cir. 2016) (upholding dismissal of fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation claims under economic loss rule); N. T......
  • C.C. & L.C. v. Baylor Scott & White Health
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • November 23, 2020
    ..."[t]he typicality inquiry rests ... on the similarity of legal and remedial theories behind [Plaintiffs’] claims." Ibe v. Jones , 836 F.3d 516, 528–29 (5th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted).Here, the legal theory behind the named Plaintiffs’ claims—that the BSW Plan's limitations on ASD treatm......
  • Cruson v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 25, 2020
    ...Jackson’s files. The fact that this will require individualized calculations does not defeat predominance. See, e.g. , Ibe v. Jones , 836 F.3d 516, 529 (5th Cir. 2016) ("Generally, individualized damages calculations will not preclude a finding of predominance." (citing Tyson Foods , 136 S.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Super Bowl Class Action
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 13, 2023
    ...the plaintiffs' bid for class certification suffered the same fate as the Steelers. A look at the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Ibe v. Jones, 836 F.3d 516 (5th Cir. 2016), provides some valuable The plaintiffs in the suit sought to certify three different classes: (1) the ticketholders who had......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT