The Sports Lawyer
February 2015
THE SPORTS LAWYER
In This Issue
February 2015
Faculty Editors
Benson Family Suit Over Saints
Rooftop Property Owners Sue to
Protect Visibility into Wrigley Field
San Jose Loses Appeal Over Oakland
Athletics’ Relocation Attempt
Photographer Sues Nike Over
“Jumpman” Logo
Also
Gary Roberts – Indiana University Robert H.
McKinney School of Law
Gabe Feldman – Tulane University Law School
Student Editors
Joseph Nguyen – Senior Managing Editor
Jeff D. Karas – Senior Articles Editor
Victoria Acuff – Junior Articles Editor
Spencer Low
Tate Martin
Caroline Carmer
Alex Heath
Breard Snellings
Fritz Metzinger
Ruben Garcia
Deniz Koray
Staff
Suit Filed Against Lou Lamoriello for Laughing at
Fired Employees
ESPN Sues Notre Dame over Public Access Records
Regarding Athletes
Spurs Forward Tim Duncan Sues Financial Advisor
for $1M
Two Former WWE Wrestlers File Suit Over
Concussions
National
Football
Table of Contents
National Football League – 2, Major League Baseball – 3, National Hockey League – 5, National Collegiate Athletic
Association – 6, National Basketball League – 7, Other News – 8
1
The Sports Lawyer
February 2015
National Football League
Benson Family Suit Over Saints
On January 22, 2015, Renee Benson, Rita Leblanc and Ryan Leblanc sued New Orleans Saints owner
Thomas Milton Benson, Jr. in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in New Orleans for
interdiction. Renee Benson alleges that Tom Benson’s mental capacity has diminished and that he has
fallen under the influence of another person, which puts his estate and legacy in jeopardy.
On May 31, 1985, Tom Benson purchased the New Orleans
Saints after earning his fortune through car dealerships and
the banking industry. Tom Benson has been critical in
keeping the Saints in New Orleans, bringing Super Bowls
to the city, and helping the team recover from Hurricane
Katrina. Furthermore, in 2004 Benson brought the Voodoo,
an Arena Football League team, to New Orleans, and in
2012 Benson purchased the New Orleans Pelicans, an NBA
Franchise. The operation of these teams has always been a
family business, and thus Renee Benson (daughter), Rita Leblanc (grandchild), and Ryan Leblanc
(grandchild) have all played key roles in the management of the Saints, Voodoo, and Pelicans. However,
since Tom Benson married his third wife, Gayle Marie LaJaunie Bird, the family dynamic has changed.
In recent years, Tom Benson’s mental capacity has declined, which was demonstrated when Benson
purportedly said that the current President of the United States was Ronald Reagan. Due to these health
issues, Renee, Rita, and Ryan have felt left out of the loop and believe that Gayle has taken steps to limit
their access to Tom Benson. The divide in the family was further evidenced by Tom Benson skipping
Thanksgiving in Texas to attend an event at the Fairgrounds Race Course and Slots with Gayle. Finally,
on December 27, 2014, Renee, Rita, and Ryan received a letter banning them from all facilities, and on
December 29, 2014, Rita was fired from her position with the New Orleans Saints. Around this time,
Tom Benson also failed to perform duties for the Shirley Benson’s Testamentary Trust and authorized
the transfer of significant sums of money from the trust. In the complaint, Renee Benson, Rita Leblanc,
and Ryan Leblanc allege that Tom Benson is suffering from infirmity, which makes him unable to make
and communicate reasoned decisions. They also allege that Gayle Marie LaJaunie Bird is influencing
and manipulating Tom Benson. Renee Benson seeks a full interdiction of Tom Benson as well as an
appointment as the curatrix of Tom Benson’s property and person. Furthermore, Renee Benson wants
the court to appoint Rita Leblanc as undercuratrix of Tom Benson’s property and person.
“Sadly, the Benson family was forced to take this action in the best interests of Tom Benson and his
legacy, the customers of Benson family automobile dealerships, the employees of all of the family
enterprises and the multitude of Pelicans and Saints fans,” said Randall A. Smith, the attorney for the
plaintiffs. Renee Benson, Rita Leblanc, and Ryan Leblanc are represented by Smith and Stephen M.
Gele of the firm Smith & Fawer, L.L.C. in New Orleans. “Allegations regarding my mental health are
completely meritless and their allegations against my wife equally unfounded,” said Tom Benson. Tom
Benson is represented by Phillip A. Wittmann of Stone Pigman Walther Wittman, L.L.C. in New
Orleans. On Tuesday January 27, 2015, Tom Benson and his lawyers responded by asking the court to
dismiss the lawsuit. On January 28, 2015, Renee Benson’s lawyers responded by asking the court to
have Tom Benson examined by a psychiatrist, which the court later ordered. -- Alex Heath
2
The Sports Lawyer
February 2015
Major League Baseball
Rooftop Property Owners Sue to Protect Visibility into Wrigley Field
On January 8, 2015, owners of multiple rooftop properties across Wrigley Field sued the Commission on
Chicago Landmarks (the Commission) in the Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago seeking review
of the Commission’s decisions permitting renovations to the stadium. The plaintiffs also allege that the
Commission violated their constitutional rights in the process of approving the proposals.
The Commission deemed Wrigley
Field a historical landmark in
2000. Since the first games in
1914, fans have viewed Cubs
games from rooftops across the
field. Over the years, the rooftop
owners recognized the potential
for profit and began charging
hefty entry fees, providing plush
seating, and serving fancy food
and cocktails, much to the Cubs
dismay. In 2004, the rooftop
owners collectively signed a
contract
giving
the
Cubs
seventeen percent of their profits
in exchange for unobstructed
views of the stadium. The same
year, the Commission, the rooftop
owners, and the Cubs negotiated the terms of Chicago’s Landmark Ordinance. The ordinance prohibits
alterations to the “perimeter exterior elevations” and substantially altering historical appeal of Wrigley’s
open-air atmosphere. However, the Ricketts family purchased the Cubs in 2009 and began negotiating
stadium renovation plans with the city in 2013. The rooftop owners were actively consulted in previous
negations, but the city and the Cubs excluded them from these proceedings. In July and December of
2014, the Commission approved construction plans for billboards and Jumbotrons blocking visibility of
the field for some rooftop owners. In their complaint, the rooftop owners allege that the Commission
violated their constitutional rights of due process and equal protection “while acting under color of state
law” by excluding them from negotiations. They also seek review of the Commission’s decisions
claiming they violate the terms of the city’s Landmark Ordinance. The rooftop owners request an
injunction on the construction plans, unspecified monetary damages, and attorney’s fees.
“The Rooftops possess a legally protected interest in their views of Wrigley Field and a legally
cognizable stake in any landmark decision which diminishes their views,” states the complaint. The
Commission and its members will seek to dismiss the case, according to a spokesperson for the city.
The rooftop owners are represented by Thomas S. Moore and Jane F. Anderson of Anderson & Moore,
P.C. in Chicago. A hearing is set before to Judge Neil H. Cohen on May 8, 2015.
-- Caroline Carmer
3
The Sports Lawyer
February 2015
San Jose Loses Appeal Over Oakland Athletics’ Relocation Attempt
On January 15, 2015, a panel of three judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld
a lower court’s decision to dismiss the City of San Jose’s antitrust lawsuit against Major League
Baseball (“MLB”). Judge Alex Kozinski said that only Congress or the Supreme Court were in a
position to challenge MLB’s exclusion from antitrust laws, which has existed for almost a century.
San Jose is attempting to attract a baseball team to its city and has reached an agreement with the
Oakland Athletics (“A’s”) to build the team a new stadium. However, the A’s geographic rival, the San
Francisco Giants, have opposed the move based on MLB territorial rights, and MLB has refused to
allow the move. The city initially filed a suit against MLB in June 2013 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. Most of the claims were dismissed by U.S. District Judge Ronald M.
Whyte in October of that year. However, Judge Whyte allowed the city to move forward with a claim
that MLB illegally blocked a land agreement between San Jose and the A’s.
In a 12-page opinion, Judge Kozinski agreed with the lower court’s decision to dismiss the city’s suit
against MLB. Kozinski and the panel held that MLB’s exemption from antitrust suits, which was upheld
in Flood v. Kuhn, precluded the city’s attempts to seek relief under antitrust laws. “The city of San Jose
steps up to the plate to challenge the baseball industry's 92-year old exemption from the antitrust laws,”
he wrote, in reference to the famous children’s poem “Casey at the Bat.” “Like Casey, San Jose has
struck out here,” Kozinski added. The only recourse left for the city is to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Philip L. Gregory, an attorney for the city,
indicated this was a possibility. “The Ninth
Circuit appears here to be inviting the Supreme
Court to take up this issue," Gregory told the
San Francisco Chronicle. San Jose Mayor Sam
Liccardo added that the city “has nothing but
upside to continue to pursue this to the Supreme
Court.” The city was represented by Gregory,
Joseph W. Cotchett, Frank C. Damrell, Jr., Anne
Marie Murphy, and Camilo Artiga-Purcell of
Cotchett, Pitre, and McCarthy, LLP of
Burlingame, California, as well as Richard
Doyle and Nora Frimann of the San Jose City
Attorney’s Office. Incoming MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred hoped the Circuit Court’s decision
would end the suit and that Oakland could seek a new stadium. “The real issue for us going forward is
that Oakland needs a new ballpark, and we need to get focused on making sure that we get that done as
fast as we can.” MLB was represented by John W. Keker, Paula L. Blizzard, R. Adam Lauridsen, and
Thomas E. Gorman of Keker & Van Nest LLP in San Francisco, and Bradley I. Ruskin of Proskauer
Rose LLP, New York, and Scott P. Cooper, Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Jennifer L. Roche, and Shawn S.
Ledingham, Jr. of Proskauer Rose LLP in Los Angeles.
-- Deniz Koray
4
The Sports Lawyer
February 2015
National Hockey League
Suit Filed Against Lou Lamoriello for Laughing at Fired Employees
On January 20, 2015, Richard Krezwick, former
president of the New Jersey Devils Arena
Entertainment (DAE), filed suit against Lou
Lamoriello, president and general manager of the
New Jersey Devils, in the United States District
Court District of New Jersey, for tortuous
interference with a prospective contract.
Krezwick’s compliant claims that but for
Lamoriello’s malicious misconduct, Krezwick
would have received at least a two-year contract
upon the sale of the DAE organization.
The complaint claims that Lamoriello harbored ill will towards former Prudential Center president
Krezwick because he had taken over control of the team’s business operations and responsibilities that
had been Lamoriello’s until Krezwick’s hiring. The complaint lays out a series of contentious events
and examples of behind the scenes politicking on Lamoriello’s part, including walking out of a meeting
and refusing to return as long as Krezwick was present. Additionally, when the team was being sold
Lamoriello aggressively urged the new owners not to employ Krezwick, impugning his professional
competency and character and casting aspirations on his integrity. Krezwick claims he was treated as a
nemesis throughout his tenure, and was only informed of his dismissal when another individual was
introduced with his title during a staff meeting that included 100 employees. Krezwick is seeking
compensatory damages of at least $2,329,567.50 less mitigation, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses incurred through the case, and the granting of such further relief as the court
deems just and proper. Furthermore, the plaintiff seeks the enjoiner and permanent restraint of
Lamoriello from impugning Krezwick’s professional reputation and interfering in present and
prospective contractual relationships.
At one point, according to NJ.com, “Lamoriello physically positioned himself…at the base of the
employee elevator so that he could watch (former senior managers who had been aligned with
Krezwick) pass by with their boxes…as to take credit for their firing.” Krezwick is represented by
Robert Mellman of the Law Offices of Robert B. Mellman. The New Jersey Devils general counsel is
Brad Shron. A date has not yet been set for hearing.
-- Breard Snellings
5
The Sports Lawyer
February 2015
National Collegiate Athletic
Association
ESPN Sues Notre Dame over Public Access Records Regarding Athletes
On January 15, 2015, television network ESPN sued Notre Dame University
in St. Joseph County Superior Court for the university’s denial of multiple
public access requests made by ESPN regarding athletes. The lawsuit does
not say what incident reports are being sought or which athletes they pertain
to.
On September 16, 2014, ESPN reporter Paula Lavigne submitted a public
records report to the Notre Dame Security Police Department (NDSPD)
related to student-athletes. The NDSPD denied that request, claiming it was
not subject to Indiana Public Access laws because it was not a public law
enforcement agency. State Public Access Counselor Luke Britt issued an
advisory opinion on October 31, 2014 in which he stated that the NDSPD
should be subject to public access laws because it enforces the Indiana
criminal code and has the power to police the surrounding community as well. Although previous
opinions from previous Public Access Counselors stated otherwise, Britt wrote that it should be subject
to the law although his opinion was not compulsory. Lavigne then made requests on November 4, and
November 20, 2014 to the NDSPD, both of which were denied. Britt issued another opinion on January
5, 2015, which stated that Lavigne’s request from November 4 likely contained investigatory record
information that could legally be withheld, but her second request was for a daily log, which he stated
must be turned over or the NDSPD would be in violation of the Access to Public Records Act. As a
result of the repeated denials, ESPN filed its lawsuit in mid-January.
“Our practices are in full accord with the Access to
Public Records Act and consistent with multiple
advisory opinions that have addressed this matter over
the past 12 years,” Notre Dame spokesman Dennis
Brown said in a statement on January 21, 2015. “We
are confident that our position will be affirmed in
court.” There was no statement from ESPN, but Britt
wrote in his opinion on January 5, “The police force is
established by the governing body of a private
institution, but their powers come from the state of
Indiana. I am not comfortable saying an organization can hide behind the cloak of secrecy when they
have the power to arrest and create criminal records and exercise the state's police powers.” No date has
been set for hearing.
-- Spencer Low
6
The Sports Lawyer
February 2015
National Basketball League
Spurs Forward Tim Duncan Sues Financial Advisor for $1M
On January 29, 2015, San Antonio Spurs forward Tim Duncan sued Atlanta financial advisor and
winery magnate Charles Banks in Texas District Court in San Antonio for breaching his fiduciary duty
to Duncan as a financial advisor and investment manager. The complaint asserts that Banks withheld 20
percent of Duncan’s return on the loan to the sports merchandising company for which Banks served as
chairman. Duncan also claims that Banks forged Duncan’s signature on a bank loan and encouraged
him to invest in a series of wineries and funds that benefited Banks alone.
Shortly after the two met in 1998, Duncan began to
regard Banks, then a financial advisor for
professional athletes at CSI Capital Management,
as a “personal and financial advisor.” Banks
eventually convinced Duncan to invest $7.5 million
in his fledgling sports merchandising company,
Gameday Entertainment, LLC.
Although the
written loan agreement provided for no deductions,
Banks allegedly directed Gameday to reserve 20
percent of the return owed to Duncan as a fee for
Banks. The complaint contends that Banks never
informed Duncan he was withholding the 20
percent and that Duncan is entitled to all funds
Banks siphoned from his return payments. Additionally, Comerica Bank claims that it possesses a
guaranty signed by Duncan assuring the bank that Gameday would repay more than $6 million in loans,
as well as a subordination and intercreditor agreement indicating that Duncan’s Gameday loan
agreement was subordinate to the company’s debt to Comerica. The complaint asserts that both
signatures are forgeries. Duncan lastly claims that Banks cajoled him into investing in several wineries
and investment funds. Banks, per the complaint, has reaped substantial financial benefits from these
investments while Duncan has earned negligible returns. The complaint alleges that Banks breached his
fiduciary duty to Duncan as a trusted financial advisor and seeks at least $1 million in compensatory
damages, as well as a possible injunction against the enforcement of the forged guaranty and
subordination agreements.
“Banks exploited my good intentions and our relationship for his personal gain and my substantial loss,”
Duncan said in a statement. Duncan is represented by Richard C. Danysh, J. Tullos Wells, and Michael
D. Bernard of San Antonio firm Bracewell & Giuliani LLP. “It's completely false,” Banks said. “He
has been paid. It's been a good investment for him. He's made over $2 million since October 2012.” It is
not yet known who will represent Banks in this matter.
-- Fritz Metzinger
7
The Sports Lawyer
February 2015
Other News
Photographer Sues Nike Over “Jumpman” Logo
On January 23, 2015, photographer Jacobus
Rentmeester sued Nike, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon in Portland for
copyright infringement. Rentmeester claims that
Nike used a photograph he had taken of basketball
legend Michael Jordan without permission to
create the Jordan Brand “Jumpman” logo.
In 1984, Rentmeester staged and shot the
photograph of Jordan for Life Magazine for a
special section dedicated to the upcoming
Olympic Games. As a freelancer, Rentmeester
retained the copyright of the photograph but
allowed Nike to use two transparencies of it for $50. Rentmeester also says that he nearly filed suit
against Nike after they copied the image of Jordan and placed it on their billboards, but was then paid
$15,000 by the Oregon company to have limited usage of the image for the next two years. In his
complaint, Rentmeester alleges that Nike continued its use of the photograph after this time period and
used it as inspiration for the “Jumpman” logo of Jordan’s silhouette. Rentmeester registered his photo
with the U.S. Copyright Office in December 2014 and is now seeking unspecified monetary damages
and an injunction against Nike from using the image.
“Mr. Rentmeester created the pose,” the lawsuit says. “[He was]
inspired by a ballet technique known as a 'grand jete,' a long
horizontal jump during which a dancer performs splits in mid-air.
The pose, while conceived to make it appear that Mr. Jordan was
in the process of a dunk, was not reflective of Mr. Jordan's
natural jump or dunking style.” Rentmeester is represented by
attorneys Eric B. Fastiff, Dean M. Harvey, and Katherine C.
Lubin of the San Francisco firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, along with Cody Hoesly of the Portland-based firm Larkins Vacura LLP. Nike
spokesperson Greg Rossiter said that the company will not be issuing any comment on the matter.
-- Ruben Garcia
8
The Sports Lawyer
February 2015
Two Former WWE Wrestlers File Suit Over Concussions
On January 16, 2015, Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, two former
professional wrestlers, filed suit against World Wrestling Entertainment
(WWE) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
in Philadelphia seeking to be compensated for injuries they sustained
during and after their wrestling careers. In the suit, they allege that WWE
has directly caused long term injuries to current and former wrestlers both
through their acknowledged promotion of violence, and negligence on
their part to prevent potential injuries during performances.
One of the main injuries caused by the WWE in neglecting their duties to
protect fighters, according to the lawsuit, is brain injuries. LoGrasso
claims to suffer from serious neurological injury including memory loss,
depression, and anxiety; Singleton has an array of serious symptoms of mental illness ranging from
tremors and convulsions to an impaired ability to reason. Both wrestlers suffer from memory loss,
which the complaint alleges could have been caused by any number of instances while performing,
including the highly dangerous moves they perform on other wrestlers, using dangerous props to attack
other fighters, and even the inherently dangerous matches such as “cage matches” in which they
participate. In the lawsuit, the former wrestlers state that it is not simply that the WWE has failed to
protect their wrestlers from these hazardous conditions, but that they deliberately create and glorify the
violence of the matches in order to create more excitement for the audience and drive up their own
profits. The former wrestlers seek relief in the form of a declaration of liability from the WWE,
injunctive relief, medical monitoring, and financial compensation for the long-term chronic injuries,
financial losses, expenses, and intangible losses suffered as a result of the WWE’s willful, wanton,
reckless, and grossly negligent conduct.
Jerry McDevitt, representing the WWE in this matter, stated that the WWE
has never concealed any known medical information from its wrestlers.
“WWE was well ahead of sports organizations in implementing concussion
management procedures and policies as a precautionary measure as the
science and research on this issue emerged,” said McDevitt of the firm K&L
Gates LLP. Konstantine Kyros, the Hingham, Massachusetts-based attorney
for the wrestlers in the case, likened this lawsuit to another professional
organization’s litigation, stating “The NFL lawsuit articulates a lot of issues
that are present in the WWE, namely ignorance and the downplaying of risks
of repetitive concussions.” The plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial on all
issues that are deemed to be worthy of such trial.
-- Tate Martin
9
The Sports Lawyer
February 2015
3rd Annual Sports Lawyers Association
Law Student Writing Competition
Deadline Quickly Approaching
Theme: Current Issues in Sports Law
Deadline for submission: March 2, 2015
Submit papers to: [email protected]
Winning Authors to Receive:
$5,000 will be awarded for first place selection and submission will be published
in the Sports Lawyers Journal (subject to SLA's editorial standards)
$3,000 awarded for second place selection
$2,000 awarded for third place selection
All three finalists will receive a complimentary registration for the 2015 SLA
Annual Meeting in Baltimore, May 14 - 16, at the Baltimore Marriott Waterfront
(recipients recognized and order of awards presented at the SLA Annual Meeting
in Baltimore). Winners need not be present at the announcement.
Winners are solely responsible for taxes on their prize winnings and must provide
a social security number for tax reporting purposes.
For more information, click here
10
The Sports Lawyer
February 2015
The Sports Lawyers Association
Officers
President: Glenn M. Wong
Secretary: Vered Yakovee
Treasurer: Ash Narayan
Director of Publications: Gabe Feldman
President Elect: Matthew J. Mitten
Staff
Executive Director: Richard A. Guggolz
Deputy Executive Director: William M. Drohan, CAE
Program Manager: Melissa Pomerene
Administrative Assistant: Colleen MacCutcheon
Board of Directors
For a full list and biographies of all board members, please visit:
http://www.sportslaw.org
You can follow the Sports Lawyers Association on:
Facebook
Twitter
11
LinkedIn