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

Being Fired for Things an Employee Did On Their Own Time, Outside of Work: Legal or Not?

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Court Finds Breach of Contract of Oral Agreement/Loan

In November, 2014, plaintiff and defendant agreed that the plaintiff would loan the defendant $200,000, and the defendant would pay him back in 4 installments of $50,000 over the next year. The defendant made the first 3 payments (totaling $150,000), but not the last payment. The plaintiff then sued for breach of contract for the remaining $50,000. There was nothing in writing, just an oral agreement. It appears that as soon as the defendant served his "Answer" to the "Complaint", the plaintiff moved for summary judgment (a kind of mini-trial on paper). The evidence included the cancelled check for $200,000 and the records of payments totaling $150,000. The appeals court held that, although there was nothing in writing, the oral agreement was enforceable as a contract and held that the plaintiff had proven his breach of contract claim.  The defendant had argued it was too early in the case to decide such a motion, that more evidence needed to be gathered (called...
Post a Comment
Read more