Skip to main content

Litigation Lessons From Deflategate: "Standing" To Bring A Lawsuit

A recent lawsuit in the news got me thinking about something very basic in litigation called "standing". Standing means you, as the plaintiff, have a personal stake in a dispute, or in the outcome of a lawsuit, or you were the actual person or party injured by the acts of the defendants.

Standing is a "threshold question" in a lawsuit. At a minimum you need standing, or your case will be thrown out. 

The "lawsuit in the news" was the idiotic lawsuit brought by seven New England Patriots fans against the NFL, Commissioner Roger Goodell, and even Robert Kraft (the Patriots owner!) over Goodell's punishment of Tom Brady and the Patriots for Deflategate. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair competition under Massachusetts law, fraud, breach of contract, a civil RICO claim (originally meant for organized crime!), and some other things.

The Patriot fans then made a motion for something called a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction to allow the Patriots to be able to draft a first-round pick in the (now over) NFL draft.

The Massachusetts federal judge hearing the case denied the motion. One thing the judge said was, umm, guys, you don't have standing:
Among other deficiencies, plaintiffs are not likely to succeed in establishing that they have standing to assert the claims in the complaint; that they were parties to any relevant contract, express or implied; that the defendants owed them any relevant duty of care; or that there is any legally cognizable injury for which the law will provide relief.
That the plaintiffs had no standing was my first thought when I heard about the case. It is pretty obvious.

A check of the docket sheet in the case shows that that the NFL, Roger Goodell, and Robert Kraft have all moved to dismiss the case based on (among other things) lack of standing. The case will be thrown out, and, frankly, I would be worried about sanctions for even bringing a case like this. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Know Your Rights: Money/Remedy at Law vs. Equitable Relief

When you bring a lawsuit (or some other kind of action or proceeding) in court, you are asking the court to give you some kind of relief. Generally speaking, that relief is either money (called "damages" or "money damages" or a "remedy at law") or equitable relief. Everyone knows what money is. What is "equitable relief"? It is relief other than money. Some examples of equitable relief (or "relief at equity" or an "equitable remedy") are:  specific performance of a contract -- you entered into a contract with another party for them to do something; they failed to do it; you sue them to force them to perform as they agreed to in the contract an injunction -- you bring an action to make another party do something or stop doing something rescission of contract -- you entered into a contract; you believe there is a problem with the contract, or the other side committed fraud, or the other side can't perform its oblig...
Post a Comment
Read more

Respond to Demands for Evidence or Be Prepared to Have Your Case Thrown Out!

The evidence or fact-gathering phase of a lawsuit is called "discovery". Each party is entitled to demand various kinds of evidence from the other party or parties in preparation for a possible trial. Two common kinds of discovery demands are a "Demand for Discovery and Inspection" and "Interrogatories" (which are written questions, answered in writing, under oath). (Psst: Interrogatories are basically a waste of time, but that will be left for another day.) In a recent decision , a New York appeals court affirmed the ruling of a lower court, throwing out a case for plaintiff's failing to respond to defendants' discovery demands. In that case, an LLC sued an architecture firm for malpractice and breach of contract. During the discovery phase, defendants architects served plaintiff with a Demand for Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories. You only have 20 days to respond or object to discovery demands, or you lose a lot of rights in how yo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Law Update: FTC sues DIRECTV for Deceptive Business Practices

I'm sure most people think that "of course" big businesses are constantly, intentionally, ripping people off and are engaged in deceptive business practices. As a lawyer, my inclination is I can't believe a big business, with lots of executives and lots of lawyers looking things over, could possibly offer promos or services that are so misleading or deceptive that they are illegal. They can't possibly be that dumb. Sometimes I'm wrong. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission has sued DIRECTV in San Francisco federal court for engaging in deceptive and misleading business practices in violation of federal law. DIRECTV was telling consumers, hey, look at our low monthly rates and look at all the great stuff you get, come sign up with us! However, DIRECTV failed to adequately disclose that, oh, by the way, in order to get that great deal, you have to sign a two-year contract; those low rates are only good for the first year; your monthly bill could go ...
Post a Comment
Read more