Super Bowl 2011 fans can’t pursue class action
The National Football League (NFL) just scored an important win.
July 11, 2013 at 08:21 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The National Football League (NFL) just scored an important win.
On Tuesday, a district court judge denied class action status to a group of football fans who sued the NFL for fraud and breach of contract because of the bad experiences they had at the 2011 Super Bowl in Dallas.
Just hours before the 2011 championship game kicked off, 1,250 temporary seats at Cowboys Stadium were deemed unsafe. That forced 850 ticketholders to move to new seats and 400 others to move to standing-room locations.
The plaintiffs, who were Super Bowl ticketholders, claimed the league was responsible for the stadium's improperly installed seats, which caused them to either be denied seats for the game, moved to other seats or seated in spots with obstructed views.
In her decision, U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn wrote that the plaintiffs' “issues are individualized” and therefore not suitable for a class action.
The plaintiffs' lawyer told Bloomberg that he and his clients are “disappointed with the court's ruling but look forward to representing hundreds of our clients this year in the trials against the NFL. During those trials we will prove that the NFL defrauded its fans.”
For more sports-related legal news from InsideCounsel, read:
The National Football League (NFL) just scored an important win.
On Tuesday, a district court judge denied class action status to a group of football fans who sued the NFL for fraud and breach of contract because of the bad experiences they had at the 2011 Super Bowl in Dallas.
Just hours before the 2011 championship game kicked off, 1,250 temporary seats at Cowboys Stadium were deemed unsafe. That forced 850 ticketholders to move to new seats and 400 others to move to standing-room locations.
The plaintiffs, who were Super Bowl ticketholders, claimed the league was responsible for the stadium's improperly installed seats, which caused them to either be denied seats for the game, moved to other seats or seated in spots with obstructed views.
In her decision, U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn wrote that the plaintiffs' “issues are individualized” and therefore not suitable for a class action.
The plaintiffs' lawyer told Bloomberg that he and his clients are “disappointed with the court's ruling but look forward to representing hundreds of our clients this year in the trials against the NFL. During those trials we will prove that the NFL defrauded its fans.”
For more sports-related legal news from InsideCounsel, read:
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 All
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute read
Baker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
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
