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

Recent Cases: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court in Slip and Fall

In a decision issued on March 18, 2015 , a New York appeals court reversed a lower court decision dismissing a slip and fall case. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old boy. He was injured when he slipped and fell on "loose and broken pieces of asphalt" as he was running towards an ice cream truck near an Ikea store in Brooklyn. There were two interesting things about the decision. First, like many slip and fall cases, the case turned on constructive notice--how long was the loose/broken asphalt on the ground before the accident so that the defendants should have seen it and corrected the dangerous condition? The appeals court said the defendants failed to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area, so they did not establish lack of constructive notice. The more interesting thing is that apparently the boy told staff at the hospital where he was taken that he tripped over his shoelaces. The defendants found this in the hospital records and basically said, "Ha! He di...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Developments: Lawsuit Against School District for a Bus Monitor Abusing a Special Needs Child

The parents of a child "who suffers from severe mental disabilities" sued the Beacon City School District, in Dutchess County, alleging that a bus monitor physically and mentally abused their child. The parents sued the School District for, among other things, assault, battery, and negligent supervision. The case went through the fact-finding phase (called "discovery"), and the School District made a motion to dismiss at least some of the claims. The motion was granted, but an appeals court reversed the lower court.  The appeals court first noted that  [s]chools have a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision and  [t]he standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school's supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same...
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