Super Bowl Ticket-Holder Scores in Appeals Court in Case Against NFL
After reviewing a decision by a New Jersey federal court tossing a man's lawsuit against the National Football League over its Super Bowl ticketing practices, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district judge's call and put the case back in play.
December 15, 2017 at 01:36 PM
3 minute read
After reviewing a decision by a New Jersey federal court tossing a man's lawsuit against the National Football League over its Super Bowl ticketing practices, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district judge's call and put the case back in play.
The three-judge panel—Chief Judge D. Brooks Smith, Judge Julio M. Fuentes and U.S. District Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware, sitting by designation—overturned the dismissal of plaintiff Josh Finkelman's putative class action against the NFL for lack of standing.
When Super Bowl XLVIII came to East Rutherford in 2014, 99 percent of tickets went to NFL teams and league insiders, according to Finkelman's suit, brought on behalf of people who bought tickets for more than face value. The remaining 1 percent of tickets are sold to the public, with purchasers determined by lottery. The suit claimed violations of New Jersey's Ticket Law, which bars the withholding of more than 5 percent of available seating for an event.
Finkelman bought two tickets on the resale market for $2,000 each, far in excess of the named price of $800 each. His case was dismissed and his first attempt to revive it at the Third Circuit failed. He filed an amended complaint, which was again tossed, but this time, Fuentes said Finkelman had demonstrated standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, he showed in his amended allegations that the NFL's withholding of tickets drove up prices in the secondary market, according to Fuentes.
“Finkelman did not just allege that prices would be lower on the secondary market were it not for the NFL's withholding,” Fuentes said in the panel's opinion. “Instead, Finkelman alleged a causal chain justifying why the NFL's withholding set into motion a series of events that ultimately raised prices on the secondary market.”
He added, “Specifically, Finkelman alleged that the insiders to whom the NFL presently provides tickets are more likely to resell those tickets through third-party brokers to keep those sales anonymous, and those brokers in turn are more likely to charge higher prices. But if more tickets were made available to fans initially, fans would be more likely than the NFL insiders are to sell through direct fan-to-fan sales, and the prices would likely be lower.”
Fuentes also said that Finkelman offered economic facts that are “specific, plausible and susceptible to proof at trial.”
Bruce Nagel of Nagel Rice in Roseland, who represented the plaintiff and the putative class, said in an email Friday, “We are thrilled with the opinion and the NFL is now facing hundreds of millions in damages for their admitted withholding of Super Bowl tickets, which violated New Jersey law.”
Jonathan Pressment of Haynes and Boone in New York represented the NFL. The firm did not respond to a request for comment.
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'Point Us to the Plain Language': NJ Supreme Court Grills Defense Statutory Requirements for Affidavit of Merit
5 minute readMed Mal Claim for Injury Stemming From Epidural Nets $2.75 Million Settlement
3 minute readFormer Fed Prosecutor Takes Leadership Role in NJ AG's Public Corruption Department
4 minute readTrending 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