Jackson v. National Football League
Decision Date | 24 September 1992 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 4-92-876. |
Citation | 802 F. Supp. 226 |
Parties | Keith JACKSON, D.J. Dozier, Thomas Everett, Louis Lipps, Stephone Paige, Joseph Phillips, Webster Slaughter, Natu Tuatagaloa, Garin Veris and Leon White, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE; The Five Smiths, Inc.; Buffalo Bills, Inc.; Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc.; Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.; Cleveland Browns, Inc.; The Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd.; PDB Sports, Ltd.; The Detroit Lions, Inc.; The Green Bay Packers, Inc.; Houston Oilers, Inc.; Indianapolis Colts, Inc.; Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc.; The Los Angeles Raiders, Ltd.; Los Angeles Rams Football Company, Inc.; Miami Dolphins, Ltd.; Minnesota Vikings Football Club, Inc.; KMS Patriots Limited Partnership; The New Orleans Saints Limited Partnership; New York Football Giants, Inc.; New York Jets Football Club, Inc.; The Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, Inc.; B & B Holdings, Inc.; Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc.; The Chargers Football Company; The San Francisco Forty-Niners, Ltd.; The Seattle Seahawks, Inc.; Tampa Bay Area NFL Football Club, Inc.; and Pro-Football, Inc.; Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Edward M. Glennon, Carol T. Rieger, Charles J. Lloyd, and Lindquist & Vennum, Minneapolis, Minn., James W. Quinn, Jeffrey L. Kessler, and Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York City, for plaintiffs.
James Fitzmaurice, Daniel J. Connolly, and Faegre & Benson, Minneapolis, Minn., Herbert Dym, Jeffrey Pash, and Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C., Frank Rothman, Shepard Goldfein, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants.
Peter S. Hendrixson, and Dorsey & Whitney, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, Inc.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prohibit defendants from continuing to restrict plaintiffs pursuant to the Right of First Refusal/Compensation Rules of Plan B. Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, the court grants plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and defers ruling on their motion for a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs are professional athletes who have been employed by various member teams of the National Football League ("NFL"). Plaintiffs bring the present action seeking relief for injuries that they allegedly have suffered as a result of defendants' Right of First Refusal/Compensation Rules of Plan B ("the Plan B rules"). Plaintiffs' contracts with their respective teams all expired as of February 1, 1992. By operation of the Plan B rules, as of April 1, 1992, all of the plaintiffs' former teams gained the exclusive rights to plaintiffs' services.1 At the time the present suit was filed, September 14, 1992, all ten players remained restricted under those rules.
As of the date of this order, September 24, 1992, only four players remain restricted by the Plan B rules: Keith Jackson, Webster Slaughter, D.J. Dozier and Garin Veris. Of the remaining six players, Thomas Everett was traded and has subsequently signed a contract for the 1992 season. Natu Tuatagaloa, Louis Lipps and Leon White were released by their former clubs and have subsequently signed contracts with new clubs for the 1992 season. Stephone Paige and Joseph Phillips were also released by their former clubs, and at the present time remain unrestricted free agents.
The four players who remain restricted under the Plan B rules contend that they are entitled to injunctive relief because they have suffered and continue to suffer immediate, irreparable harm for which monetary damages are inadequate. Relying on the jury's findings in the McNeil case2 as the basis for the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, plaintiffs also contend that they demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, and thus ask the court to grant the requested relief.
The court considers four factors when determining whether to issue either a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction:
1. The probability that the movant will succeed on the merits of its claims;
2. The threat of irreparable harm to the movant if the requested relief is denied;
3. The balance between the harm to the movant if injunctive relief is denied and the injury that will result if such relief is granted; and
4. The public interest.
Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir.1981) (en banc) (preliminary injunction); S.B. McLaughlin & Co. v. Tudor Oaks Condominium Project, 877 F.2d 707, 708 (8th Cir.1989) ( ). The court will examine each factor in turn.
Plaintiffs rely on the doctrine of collateral estoppel to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. See, e.g., Truck Drivers, Local 705 v. Almarc Mfg., Inc., 553 F.Supp. 1170, 1173 (N.D.Ill. 1982) ( ).
Collateral estoppel is appropriate where:
See, e.g., Oldham v. Pritchett, 599 F.2d 274, 279 (8th Cir.1979) (citing Gerrard v. Larsen, 517 F.2d 1127, 1130 (8th Cir.1975)). In the present case, plaintiffs seek to use the doctrine offensively to prevent the NFL defendants from relitigating the legality of the Plan B rules, an issue that defendants previously lost in the McNeil case.3 In Parklane Hosiery v. Shore, the Supreme Court held that the use of offensive collateral estoppel was within the trial court's discretion and emphasized three factors that courts should consider when making that determination:
439 U.S. 322, 331-32, 99 S.Ct. 645, 651-52, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). Applying those standards, the court finds that it is likely that in the present action, defendants are collaterally estopped from relitigating the legality of the Plan B rules. The issue on which plaintiffs will seek collateral estoppel is identical to that raised in the McNeil litigation.4 The court further notes that the probability of an appeal by defendants in the McNeil case does not necessarily preclude the application of collateral estoppel. See, e.g., In re Ewing, 852 F.2d 1057, 1060 (8th Cir.1988) ( ). Defendants in the present action are also the same parties as in McNeil, and were given a full and fair opportunity to litigate the legality of the Plan B rules in McNeil.
Turning to the additional factors relevant to offensive use of collateral estoppel, the court determines that such use will not improperly reward plaintiffs for their failure to join in the McNeil litigation. The court further concludes that the NFL defendants had significant incentive to fully litigate the legality of the Plan B rules in McNeil. Finally, defendants' procedural opportunities are similar to those in McNeil, and thus not likely to create a different result in the present action.
Even if the court were to determine that the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply, the court nonetheless concludes, after hearing all of the evidence and arguments in the McNeil case, that plaintiffs demonstrate a substantial probability of success on the merits of their claims. See, e.g., Smith v. Pro Football, Inc., 593 F.2d 1173, 1183-89 (D.D.C.1978) ( ); Mackey v. National Football League, 543 F.2d 606, 620-23 (8th Cir.1976) (, )cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 801, 98 S.Ct. 28, 54 L.Ed.2d 59 (1977); Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., Civ. No. 901071, slip op. at 19-23, 1992 WL 88039 (D.D.C. March 10, 1992) ( ); Kapp v. National Football League, 390 F.Supp. 73, 82-83 (N.D.Cal. 1974) (, )judgment aff'd on other grounds, 586 F.2d 644 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 907, 99 S.Ct. 1996, 60 L.Ed.2d 375 (1979); cf. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm'n v. National Football League, 726 F.2d 1381, 1395-98 (9th Cir.) (, )cert. denied, 469 U.S. 990, 105 S.Ct. 397, 83 L.Ed.2d 331 (1984); North American Soccer League v. National Football League, 670 F.2d 1249, 1257-61 (2d Cir.) (, )cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1074, 103 S.Ct. 499, 74 L.Ed.2d 639 (1982); United States v. National Football League, 116 F.Supp. 319, 327 (E.D.Pa.1953) ( ).
Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that this factor tips in favor of granting plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brady v. Nat'l Football League, Civil No. 11–639 (SRN/JJG).
...a group of players seeking to become free agents brought suit complaining that the same restraints injured them. Jackson v. NFL, 802 F.Supp. 226, 228 (D.Minn.1992). Based on the McNeil verdict, the court granted their motion for a temporary restraining order, finding that they would suffer ......
-
Brady v. Nat'l Football League
...Sept. 10, 1992). Two new antitrust lawsuits were filed in the two-week period after the McNeil verdict. Ten NFL players brought suit in Jackson v. NFL, alleging that the League's free agency restrictions violated the Sherman Act. Jackson v. NFL, 802 F.Supp. 226, 228–229, 234 n. 14 (D.Minn.1......
-
Mertz ex rel. Mertz v. Houstoun
...order upon notice. See The Nation Magazine v. Department of State, 805 F.Supp. 68, 72 (D.D.C.1992); Jackson v. National Football League, 802 F.Supp. 226, 229 (D.Minn.1992); Wright v. Columbia University, 520 F.Supp. 789, 792-93 (E.D.Pa.1981); Moore's Federal Practice § 65.36 (3d ed. 2000). ......
-
Nat'l Football League Players Ass'n v. Nat'l Football League
...an injunction in this scenario. Mackey v. Nat'l Football League , 543 F.2d 606, 623 (8th Cir. 1976) ; Jackson v. Nat'l Football League , 802 F.Supp. 226, 234–235 (D. Minn. 1992) ; Denver Rockets v. All–Pro Mgmt., Inc. , 325 F.Supp. 1049, 1066–1067 (C.D. Cal 1971), reinstated by Haywood v. N......
-
Issues in Antitrust Private Litigation: Sports Cases
...Association to restore his eligibility and to force Vanderbilt to allow him to play football). 248. Jackson v. Nat’l Football League, 802 F. Supp. 226, 232 (D. Minn. 1992). 120 Sports and Antitrust Law dominant party is breaching antitrust laws. 249 The courts, however, have not created a s......
-
Table of Cases
...1994), 44 International Boxing Club of New York, Inc. v. United States, 358 U.S. 242 (1959), 50 J Jackson v. National Football League, 802 F. Supp. 226 (D. Minn. 1992), 119, 127, 128 Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984), 37 Jones v. National Collegiate Athleti......