Court Tosses $20M Lawsuit by Aaron Hernandez's Family Against NFL
A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit filed by a Coral Gables attorney, ruling Hernandez's claims were covered under a global concussion settlement.
February 15, 2019 at 05:37 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Coral Gables attorney on behalf of the family of the late Aaron Hernandez to avoid the National Football League's concussion settlement.
Hernandez's family sought $20 million for head injuries suffered by the former New England Patriots tight end during his career.
Hernandez, a former Florida Gator who played in the NFL from 2010 to 2013, was convicted of murder in 2015 and committed suicide in prison in 2017.
The lawsuit initially filed in a Massachusetts state court by Hernandez's daughter was dismissed Thursday by U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Brody is overseeing the class action settlement compensating ex-NFL players for concussion-related brain injuries.
Family attorney Bradford Sohn of Coral Gables said he would review the ruling and potentially appeal.
“I have enormous respect and continue to have enormous respect for Judge Brody and the work that'd been done in connection with this settlement, but I do find myself still struggling to find the reasoning behind this specific opinion,” he said. “Upon satisfying our concerns we will take the necessary next steps. That will be an appeal, or a number of other possibilities as well.”
The plaintiff, referred to in court papers as A.H., argued her lawsuit should be allowed to proceed outside the broader settlement, but Brody rejected that argument, saying Hernandez fit the definition of a “retired player” under the settlement and failed to properly opt out of the class action.
“Because A.H. did not plead that Hernandez was taking active steps towards employment as an NFL football player as of July 7, 2014, and because it would have been impossible for Hernandez to do so while indefinitely incarcerated, Hernandez is a retired football player within the meaning of the settlement,” Brody said in her 19-page order. “Allowing A.H.'s suit to proceed would be allowing the 'relitigation of settled question at the core' of the NFL settlement.”
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison attorney Brad Karp, who is representing the NFL, did not return a call seeking comment by deadline.
The original 2017 lawsuit alleged the NFL exposed the former tight end to repeated head injuries, which led him to develop chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE — a condition linked to violent behavior and suicide.
The NFL removed the suit to federal court and sought to dismiss the claim, saying A.H. was a class member under the class action agreement.
Although A.H. contended federal court did not have jurisdiction over the claims, Brody said she did not need to consider jurisdiction before determining whether the case was precluded by the settlement agreement.
“It is proper to decide claim preclusion on the NFL parties' motion to dismiss because claim preclusion is apparent on the face of the complaint,” Brody said. “The only facts relevant to claim preclusion are the dates of Hernandez's confinement and the content of the settlement agreement, both of which are public records.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250