The Third Circuit Dismisses Consumer Class Action for Lack of Standing
The Third Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of a consumer class action involving the contractual rights, if any, of season ticketholders to a professional sporting event. Mayer v. Belichick, 2010 WL 1980344 (3d Cir. May 19, 2010).
In Mayer, the named plaintiff was a season ticketholder to the New York Jets football franchise. He sued because a rival team -- the New England Patriots and their coach, Bill Belichick -- were found by the National Football League to have improperly engaged in the recording of the Jets's signals and visual coaching instructions. Plaintiff alleged that implicit with the purchase of a ticket is the promise that "each game will be played in accordance with NFL rules and regulations as well as all applicable federal and state laws." Id. Plaintiff alleged 9 causes of action:
(1) tortious interference with contractual relations; (2) common law fraud; (3) violations of the New Jersey Deceptive Practices Act; (4) violations of New Jersey's racketeering statute; (5) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"); (6) the infringement of the rights of ticket-holders as third-party beneficiaries; (7) breach of implied contract or quasi-contract; and (8) violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"). Finally, [plaintiff] advanced a breach of contract claim against the NFL on account of its destruction of the videotapes.
Id. at *5.
The Third Circuit observed that this was an unusual case. It traced the history of professional sporting cases generally brought by fans, noting that in nearly all of them, the courts held that the ticket merely gave the fan a license to attend the event premises; it did not create a contract to present any particular kind of show or dictate the manner in which it was to presented.
Here, the plaintiff indisputably had access to NFL football games. He did not pay something and receive nothing in return. Moreover, the court reasoned, courts are ill-equipped to decide cases based on the alleged violation of the rules of the game. That task, the court reasoned, is better left to the game's authorities, like the NFL, which did act and imposed considerable sanctions. Id. at *11-*12. The court noted that:
At the very least, a ruling in favor of Mayer could lead to other disappointed fans filing lawsuits because of 'a blown call' that apparently caused their team to lose or any number of allegedly improper acts committed by teams, coaches, players, refereees and umpires, and others. This Court refuses to countenance a course of action that would only further burden already limited judicial resources and force professional sports organizations and related individuals to expend money, time and resources to defend against such litigation.
Id. at *12.
Accordingly, the Third Circuit held that the plaintiff "suffered no cognizable injury to a legally protected interest." Id. at 11.
The Third Circuit's analysis is important beyond the sporting context. Plaintiffs often attempt to infuse into their complaints "implied" promises to comply with legal, regulatory, or advisory standards. The Third Circuit in Mayer looked beyond these allegations to examine what the nature of the injury to plaintiff was and whether it was one protected by law or contract. This approach should apply in other contexts as well.
I am pleased to report that the Mayer decision was won by colleagues of mine, Shepard Goldfein and Paul Eckles.
