Mayer v. Belichick

Decision Date19 May 2010
Docket NumberNo. 09-2237.,09-2237.
Citation605 F.3d 223
PartiesCarl J. MAYER, Appellantv.Bill BELICHICK; The New England Patriots; National Football League.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Carl J. Mayer, Esq. (Argued), Mayer Law Group, Bruce I. Afran, Esq. (Argued), Princeton, NJ, for Appellant.

Daniel L. Goldberg, Esq. (Argued), Charles L. Solomont, Esq., Bingham McCutchen, Boston, MA, David Kistler, Esq., Stephen M. Orlofsky, Esq., Blank Rome, Princeton, NJ, for Appellees Bill Belichick and New England Patriot Football Club.

Paul M. Eckles, Esq., Shepard Goldfein, Esq. (Argued), Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York, NY, for Appellee National Football League.

Before: FISHER, and COWEN, Circuit Judges and PRATTER *, District Judge.


COWEN, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Carl J. Mayer appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granting the respective motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots (“Patriots”) as well as by Defendant National Football League (“NFL”). We will affirm.


This highly unusual case was filed by a disappointed football fan and season ticket-holder in response to the so-called “Spygate” scandal. This scandal arose when it was discovered that the Patriots were surreptitiously videotaping the signals of their opponents.

Mayer, a New Jersey resident and New York Jets season ticket-holder, initially filed his complaint on September 7, 2007. He named as Defendants the Patriots, headquartered in Massachusetts, as well as the team's head coach, Belichick, a Massachusetts resident. Mayer eventually filed an amended complaint on August 19, 2008, which added the NFL, with its headquarters in New York, as a Defendant.

We, like the District Court before us, must look to the amended complaint, accepting its well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of this appeal. The “Preliminary Statement of the Case section of this extensive pleading provided a fair description of the gist of Mayer's case, at least against the Patriots and Belichick:

2. This case is brought by a New York Jets season ticket-holder on behalf of all similarly situated New York Jets season ticket-holders and other New York Jets ticket-holders against the Defendant New England Patriots and their coach, Defendant Bill Belichick. The core of this action is that the Defendants, during a game with the New York Jets on September 9, 2007, instructed an agent of the Defendants to surreptitiously videotape the New York Jets coaches and players on the field with the purpose of illegally recording, capturing and stealing the New York Jets signals and visual coaching instructions. The Defendants were in fact subsequently found by the National Football League (“NFL”) to have improperly engaged in such conduct. This violated the contractual expectations and rights of New York Jets ticket-holders who fully anticipated and contracted for a ticket to observe an honest match played in compliance with all laws, regulations and NFL rules.
3. Plaintiffs contend that in purchasing tickets to watch the New York Jets that, as a matter of contract, the tickets imply that each game will be played in accordance with NFL rules and regulations as well as all applicable federal and state laws. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants tortuously [sic] interfered with their contractual relations with the New York Jets in purchasing the tickets. They further claim that Defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Deceptive Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants violated federal and state racketeering laws by using the National Football League as an enterprise to carry out their illegal scheme. Because the Defendants have been found in other games to have illegally used video equipment, this action seeks damages for New York Jets ticket-holders for all games played in Giants stadium between the New York Jets and the New England Patriots since Bill Belichick became head coach in 2000.

(A18-A19.) Mayer then described at some length the alleged misconduct at issue here. His account, in turn, relied heavily on press accounts of the Spygate scandal as well as “on information and belief” allegations.

At their most fundamental level, the various claims alleged here arose out of the repeated and surreptitious violations of a specific NFL rule. This rule provides that ‘no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game’ and that “all video for coaching purposes must be shot from locations ‘enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead.’ (A22.) In a September 6, 2007 memorandum, Ray Anderson, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, stated that [v]ideotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.’ ( Id.)

On September 9, 2007, the Jets and the Patriots played the season opener in Giants Stadium, East Rutherford, New Jersey. Mayer possessed tickets and parking passes to this game, and the Patriots ultimately won, 38-14. then reported that the NFL was investigating accusations that an employee of the Patriots was actually videotaping the signals given by Jets coaches at this game. Specifically, NFL security reportedly confiscated a video camera and videotape from an employee during the course of the game, and this employee was accused of aiming his camera at the Jets' defensive coaches while they were sending signals out to the team's players on the field.

This was not the first time a public accusation of cheating or dishonesty had been made against the Patriots. A man wearing a Patriots credential was found carrying a video camera on the sidelines at the home field of the Green Bay Packers in November 2006. Admittedly, [t]eams are allowed to have a limited number of their own videographers on the sideline during the game, but they must have a credential that authorizes them to shoot video, and wear a yellow vest.” (A21.) However, this particular individual evidently lacked the proper credential and attire and was accordingly escorted out of the stadium by Packers security.

With respect to the 2007 incident, the Patriots denied that there was any violation of the NFL's rules. A Patriots cornerback named Ellis Hobbs told the press that he was unwilling to believe that his team had cheated and that he was standing by the team and its coaches. However, he also admitted that, [i]f it's true, obviously, we're in the wrong.” ( Id.) Belichick apologized to everyone affected following the confiscation of the videotape. But, at a weekly press conference on September 12, 2007, he refused to take questions from reporters about the NFL investigation and stormed out of the room.

On September 13, 2007, “the NFL found the Defendants guilty of violating all applicable NFL rules by engaging in a surreptitious videotaping program.” (A22.) It imposed the following sanctions: (1) the Patriots were fined $250,000.00; (2) Belichick was personally fined $500,000.00; and (3) the Patriots would be stripped of any first-round draft pick for the next year if the team reached the playoffs in the 2007-2008 season and, if not so successful, the team would otherwise lose its second and third-round picks. Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the NFL, characterized the whole episode as ‘a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field.’ ( Id.) He further justified the penalties imposed on the team on the grounds that “ ‘Coach Belichick not only serves as the head coach but also has substantial control over all aspects of New England's football operations” and therefore ‘his actions and decisions are properly attributed to the club.’ ( Id.)

The owner of the Patriots, Robert Kraft, refused to comment on the NFL's sanctions, and the New York Jets issued a statement supporting the commissioner and his findings. On September 13, 2007, Belichick stated the following: ‘Once again, I apologize to the Kraft family and every person directly or indirectly associated with the New England Patriots for the embarrassment, distraction and penalty my mistake caused. I also apologize to Patriots fans and would like to thank them for their support during the past few days and throughout my career.’ (A23.) However, he then “bizarrely ... attempted to deny responsibility, stating: We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress ...[.] With tonight's resolution, I will not be offering any further comments on this matter. We are moving on with our preparations for Sunday's game.’ ( Id.) But, at least according to Mayer, Jets ticket-holders have refused to “move on.” ( Id.)

The Patriots and Belichick deployed their surreptitious videotaping program during all eight games played against the Jets in Giants Stadium from 2000 through 2007. Beginning in 2000 when Belichick became head coach, they commenced an ongoing scheme to acquire the signals of their adversaries and then match such signals to the plays on the field, in alleged violation of the “NFL rules that are part of the ticketholders' contractual and/or quasi contractual rights.” (A24.) On the other hand, Jets fans collectively spent more than $61 million on tickets to watch these purportedly honest and competitive games between the two teams.

In 2000, Matt Walsh, an employee in the team's videography department, was hired by the team to videotape the signals of opponents. Relying specifically on statements made by Walsh to the New York Times and United States Senator Arlen Specter, Mayer made a series of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2129 cases
  • Lokuta v. Sallemi
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • October 9, 2013 dismiss, the Court should consider the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters of public record. Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)). The Court may a......
  • Johnson v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • August 25, 2021 are based upon these documents.’ " Alpizar-Fallas v. Favero, 908 F.3d 910, 914 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010) ). We take the factual allegations of the complaint as true and " ‘construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the pla......
  • Zohar CDO 2003-1, Ltd. v. Patriarch Partners, LLC (In re Zohar III, Corp.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Delaware
    • June 18, 2021
    ...Questionnaire at 8).245 Id. ¶ 4.246 Id. ¶ 5.247 Id. (Investor Questionnaire at 10 (emphasis added)).248 See, e.g. , Mayer v. Belichick , 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010) ("In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matte......
  • Olson v. Major League Baseball
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 21, 2022
    ...Boxing Match Pay-Per-View Litig. ("Pacquiao "), 942 F.3d 1160, 1171–72 (9th Cir. 2019) (collecting cases); Mayer v. Belichick , 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010) ; Bowers v. Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile , 489 F.3d 316, 322, 325 (7th Cir. 2007) ; Oliver v. Houston Astros, LLC , N......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Travel Law
    • Invalid date
    ...purchased stadium builders licenses claim breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and fraud).[786] See, e.g., Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2010) ("This highly unusual case was filed by a disappointed football fan and season ticket-holder in response to the so called 'Sp......

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