Patriots fans sue over lost #Deflategate draft picks/Judge says "No"
- Thread starter Prime Time
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 16,149
.
Watching nfl live and they had deangelo Williams as a guest. They were playing some block game. About half way through teddy bruschi pulled out a block and said to dwill, that's how you do it with the Patriots, that's how you win championships. Dwill shot back, i know you're comfortable around cameras. When it was his turn he stood up in front of the camera. Wingo said to him he was blocking the view. He said pointing to teddy, i don't want to give him tape of my moves.
Haha, they were all laughing. But the Patriots will never be able to shake that tag of cheats.
.
Watching nfl live and they had deangelo Williams as a guest. They were playing some block game. About half way through teddy bruschi pulled out a block and said to dwill, that's how you do it with the Patriots, that's how you win championships. Dwill shot back, i know you're comfortable around cameras. When it was his turn he stood up in front of the camera. Wingo said to him he was blocking the view. He said pointing to teddy, i don't want to give him tape of my moves.
Haha, they were all laughing. But the Patriots will never be able to shake that tag of cheats.
.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 4,929
What I don't understand is - are the fans pre-paying the attorney, or is the attorney just a piss poor one in terms of skills? Normally the first thing judges try to do is throw cases out for the plaintiffs lacking standing - it prevents a ton of nuisance suits. I see no way that the fans have standing in this. They are legally customers of the Patriots and the NFL, but that doesn't mean they get any say into the private business matters. The Patriots could sue - but they wouldn't dare, since there'd be too good of a chance of losing. In fact, I'd wager that the Patriots are pissed at the fans for filing the lawsuit - nothing good is likely to come - and if it went to court and they lost on the facts the Patriots would have their rep spoiled legally. Without a lawsuit a bunch of idiots will forget about the scandal.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,922
- Name
- Peter
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #24
http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/04/06/patriots-fans-deflategate-lawsuit-nfl-roger-goodell-robert-kraft
Patriots fans’ Deflategate lawsuit has almost no shot at succeeding
BY MICHAEL MCCANN
With the 2016 NFL draft just three weeks away, seven New England Patriots fans on Tuesday petitioned a federal court to give the Patriots their first-round pick back. The case—Orsatti v. NFL—is akin to a Hail Mary pass and will most likely be batted down by a court.
The seven fans, led by attorney Seth Carey, filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They seek a restraining order that would allow the Patriots to select 29th overall in the 2016 draft. The NFL took away the Patriots’ first-round pick this year as well as their fourth-round pick in the 2017 draft as part of the Deflategate punishment. The seven fans have sued not only the NFL, but also two individuals: NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Patriots owner Robert Kraft, whom the seven insist “chose his fellow billionaire owners above ... fans.”
Much of the complaint—paragraphs 18 to 45 on pages 3 to 10 of the 15-page filing—is a word-for-word quote of my Jan. 18, 2016 SI.com article, “Deflategate one year later: Anatomy of a Failed Controversy”. While I am flattered to see my work used so extensively in a court filing, it does not change my skepticism of the lawsuit.
The complaint asserts that Patriots fans have a legal interest in the NFL restoring the Patriots’ first-round pick and that the NFL, along with Goodell and Kraft, have violated that interest. The fans insist that the NFL, Goodell and Kraft have conspired to break several types of laws, including consumer protection, contract and racketeering laws.
A so-called “fraudulent inducement of consumers of the Patriots to purchase tickets, cable and NFL Sunday Ticket,” the fans insist, reveals an intentional and unlawful conspiracy against fans. The fans also maintain that they have suffered extensive emotional harm, including “embarrassment, ridicule and depression due to the rest of the country who is jealous of the Patriots ‘piling on’ and criticizing the Patriots and their fans for being ‘cheaters.’”
While I have been sharply critical of the NFL’s Deflategate punishment, it is difficult to envision a court agreeing with the fans’ theory that the law ought to guarantee them the satisfaction of the Patriots selecting a player in the first round. No court, as far as I know, has ever endorsed such an idea.
Somewhat analogously, a Miami Heat ticketholder sued the San Antonio Spurs in 2013 over not being able to watch Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker play in a game. After a long road trip, Spurs coach Gregg Popovich had strategically rested these players. The NBA fined the Spurs $250,000 for doing so. The fan’s much-ridiculed lawsuit, however, went nowhere. This is not surprising, since the fan’s ticket to attend the Heat-Spurs game offered him no guarantee of watching specific players.
The ticket only guaranteed that the Heat and Spurs would play each other, which is what occurred. With Patriots fans, although they will not be able to watch whomever the Patriots would have selected with the No. 29 pick, they will nonetheless be able to watch other Patriots players.
A court will also be leery of involving itself in a dispute between a league and a franchise without any accompanying request by that league or franchise. The fans here contend that Kraft should have challenged the NFL and that his refusal to do so created “standing”—a legitimate legal interest in a dispute—for fans to sue. This is a difficult argument to make. First, as I have explained in detail, Kraft declined to challenge the NFL not because of a conspiracy with the NFL—the same league, remember, that had punished Kraft in a way that he clearly found both unfair and unwarranted—but because such a move would have had almost no chance of succeeding.
Kraft, like other NFL owners, has contractually assented to resolving any disputes with the league internally. Owners also contractually accept any league discipline as final and not suitable for a lawsuit. For Kraft to have nonetheless sued the NFL—and thereby sue other NFL owners, many of whom are Kraft’s friends and rely on his counsel—would have been a peculiar move for a 74-year-old billionaire known for possessing reasonable judgment.
Second, even if we accept the dubious proposition that Kraft “should have” sued the NFL, it’s not clear why his refusal to do so empowers fans to sue. An accompanying brief by the seven fans argues that Patriots fans “should have just as much standing as anyone under the sun” to sue over the lost draft picks. This strikes me as a reach. The fans’ only plausible “injury” is some combination of disappointment and frustration over the NFL’s questionable logic in punishing the Patriots and in being denied an opportunity to enjoy how the 29th player selected might have improved the Patriots.
These are not the types of injuries that the law is designed to redress and are thus unlikely to provide standing. The Patriots making smart selections at other points in the draft and wisely signing free agents would be more appropriate vehicles to cure the pain.
Third, a court will wonder about precedent and the slippery slope of litigation. If a court elects to involve itself in a disciplinary dispute between a private sports league and a private ownership group in which neither has petitioned for the court’s involvement, that court might unwittingly open the floodgates for other “fan disappointment” lawsuits.
Consider any time a controversial league punishment occurs. For example, if Patriots fans have a legal right to see the 29th player selected play as a Patriot, should New Orleans Saints fans have sued over the loss of two second-round picks due to the NFL’s punishment in Bountygate, another questionable controversy?
Orsatti v. NFL is not the first attempt by Patriots fans to obtain legal relief. In February, Massachusetts resident Jim Derochea filed a consumer complaint with the Office of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. Derochea’s complaint, which has thus far been signed by 7,300 people, asserts that consumers of Patriots products have been damaged by the NFL’s actions in Deflategate. The complaint faces long odds, although like Orsatti v. NFL, it reveals how significantly Deflategate has impacted the Patriots fan base. Whether a court or law enforcement officer would be willing to do anything about that impact is another matter altogether.
Michael McCann is a legal analyst and writer for Sports Illustrated. He is also a Massachusetts attorney and the founding director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire School of Law. He also created and teaches the Deflategate undergraduate course at UNH, serves as the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor of Law at Mississippi College School of Law and is on the faculty of the Oregon Law Summer Sports Institute
Patriots fans’ Deflategate lawsuit has almost no shot at succeeding
BY MICHAEL MCCANN
With the 2016 NFL draft just three weeks away, seven New England Patriots fans on Tuesday petitioned a federal court to give the Patriots their first-round pick back. The case—Orsatti v. NFL—is akin to a Hail Mary pass and will most likely be batted down by a court.
The seven fans, led by attorney Seth Carey, filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They seek a restraining order that would allow the Patriots to select 29th overall in the 2016 draft. The NFL took away the Patriots’ first-round pick this year as well as their fourth-round pick in the 2017 draft as part of the Deflategate punishment. The seven fans have sued not only the NFL, but also two individuals: NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Patriots owner Robert Kraft, whom the seven insist “chose his fellow billionaire owners above ... fans.”
Much of the complaint—paragraphs 18 to 45 on pages 3 to 10 of the 15-page filing—is a word-for-word quote of my Jan. 18, 2016 SI.com article, “Deflategate one year later: Anatomy of a Failed Controversy”. While I am flattered to see my work used so extensively in a court filing, it does not change my skepticism of the lawsuit.
The complaint asserts that Patriots fans have a legal interest in the NFL restoring the Patriots’ first-round pick and that the NFL, along with Goodell and Kraft, have violated that interest. The fans insist that the NFL, Goodell and Kraft have conspired to break several types of laws, including consumer protection, contract and racketeering laws.
A so-called “fraudulent inducement of consumers of the Patriots to purchase tickets, cable and NFL Sunday Ticket,” the fans insist, reveals an intentional and unlawful conspiracy against fans. The fans also maintain that they have suffered extensive emotional harm, including “embarrassment, ridicule and depression due to the rest of the country who is jealous of the Patriots ‘piling on’ and criticizing the Patriots and their fans for being ‘cheaters.’”
While I have been sharply critical of the NFL’s Deflategate punishment, it is difficult to envision a court agreeing with the fans’ theory that the law ought to guarantee them the satisfaction of the Patriots selecting a player in the first round. No court, as far as I know, has ever endorsed such an idea.
Somewhat analogously, a Miami Heat ticketholder sued the San Antonio Spurs in 2013 over not being able to watch Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker play in a game. After a long road trip, Spurs coach Gregg Popovich had strategically rested these players. The NBA fined the Spurs $250,000 for doing so. The fan’s much-ridiculed lawsuit, however, went nowhere. This is not surprising, since the fan’s ticket to attend the Heat-Spurs game offered him no guarantee of watching specific players.
The ticket only guaranteed that the Heat and Spurs would play each other, which is what occurred. With Patriots fans, although they will not be able to watch whomever the Patriots would have selected with the No. 29 pick, they will nonetheless be able to watch other Patriots players.
A court will also be leery of involving itself in a dispute between a league and a franchise without any accompanying request by that league or franchise. The fans here contend that Kraft should have challenged the NFL and that his refusal to do so created “standing”—a legitimate legal interest in a dispute—for fans to sue. This is a difficult argument to make. First, as I have explained in detail, Kraft declined to challenge the NFL not because of a conspiracy with the NFL—the same league, remember, that had punished Kraft in a way that he clearly found both unfair and unwarranted—but because such a move would have had almost no chance of succeeding.
Kraft, like other NFL owners, has contractually assented to resolving any disputes with the league internally. Owners also contractually accept any league discipline as final and not suitable for a lawsuit. For Kraft to have nonetheless sued the NFL—and thereby sue other NFL owners, many of whom are Kraft’s friends and rely on his counsel—would have been a peculiar move for a 74-year-old billionaire known for possessing reasonable judgment.
Second, even if we accept the dubious proposition that Kraft “should have” sued the NFL, it’s not clear why his refusal to do so empowers fans to sue. An accompanying brief by the seven fans argues that Patriots fans “should have just as much standing as anyone under the sun” to sue over the lost draft picks. This strikes me as a reach. The fans’ only plausible “injury” is some combination of disappointment and frustration over the NFL’s questionable logic in punishing the Patriots and in being denied an opportunity to enjoy how the 29th player selected might have improved the Patriots.
These are not the types of injuries that the law is designed to redress and are thus unlikely to provide standing. The Patriots making smart selections at other points in the draft and wisely signing free agents would be more appropriate vehicles to cure the pain.
Third, a court will wonder about precedent and the slippery slope of litigation. If a court elects to involve itself in a disciplinary dispute between a private sports league and a private ownership group in which neither has petitioned for the court’s involvement, that court might unwittingly open the floodgates for other “fan disappointment” lawsuits.
Consider any time a controversial league punishment occurs. For example, if Patriots fans have a legal right to see the 29th player selected play as a Patriot, should New Orleans Saints fans have sued over the loss of two second-round picks due to the NFL’s punishment in Bountygate, another questionable controversy?
Orsatti v. NFL is not the first attempt by Patriots fans to obtain legal relief. In February, Massachusetts resident Jim Derochea filed a consumer complaint with the Office of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. Derochea’s complaint, which has thus far been signed by 7,300 people, asserts that consumers of Patriots products have been damaged by the NFL’s actions in Deflategate. The complaint faces long odds, although like Orsatti v. NFL, it reveals how significantly Deflategate has impacted the Patriots fan base. Whether a court or law enforcement officer would be willing to do anything about that impact is another matter altogether.
Michael McCann is a legal analyst and writer for Sports Illustrated. He is also a Massachusetts attorney and the founding director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire School of Law. He also created and teaches the Deflategate undergraduate course at UNH, serves as the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor of Law at Mississippi College School of Law and is on the faculty of the Oregon Law Summer Sports Institute
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,922
- Name
- Peter
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #25
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...s-to-restore-patriots-first-round-draft-pick/
Judge refuses to restore Patriots’ first-round draft pick
Posted by Mike Florio on April 9, 2016
AP
A group of Patriots fans has sued the NFL in an effort to restore the first-round draft pick that was confiscated as part of the #Deflategate punishment. A judge has quickly chimed in regarding an attempt to get the pick back in time for this month’s draft.
Via the Boston Herald, Judge F. Dennis Saylor has summarily denied the request to replenish the pick pending the outcome of the litigation.
“After reviewing the complaint, it appears highly unlikely that plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of any of their claims,” Judge Saylor wrote.
It was as dramatic a slam dunk as a court can deliver.
“The Court is denying plaintiffs’ motion without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing or an opposition brief,” the order explains. “However, the federal courts are courts of limited resources, funded by the taxpayers, and it would not be a prudent expenditure of those resources to permit the motion to progress to the hearing stage.”
Judge Saylor’s assessment of the lawsuit hints strongly at the possibility of an award of litigation costs and other penalties against Seth Carey, the Maine lawyer who signed the civil complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit frivolous filings, allowing for a wide range of sanctions.
Although the courts rarely dirty their hands by meting out so-called Rule 11 punishments, Judge Saylor’s initial reaction to this specific lawsuit suggests that a much stronger reaction could be coming later.
Judge refuses to restore Patriots’ first-round draft pick
Posted by Mike Florio on April 9, 2016
A group of Patriots fans has sued the NFL in an effort to restore the first-round draft pick that was confiscated as part of the #Deflategate punishment. A judge has quickly chimed in regarding an attempt to get the pick back in time for this month’s draft.
Via the Boston Herald, Judge F. Dennis Saylor has summarily denied the request to replenish the pick pending the outcome of the litigation.
“After reviewing the complaint, it appears highly unlikely that plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of any of their claims,” Judge Saylor wrote.
It was as dramatic a slam dunk as a court can deliver.
“The Court is denying plaintiffs’ motion without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing or an opposition brief,” the order explains. “However, the federal courts are courts of limited resources, funded by the taxpayers, and it would not be a prudent expenditure of those resources to permit the motion to progress to the hearing stage.”
Judge Saylor’s assessment of the lawsuit hints strongly at the possibility of an award of litigation costs and other penalties against Seth Carey, the Maine lawyer who signed the civil complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit frivolous filings, allowing for a wide range of sanctions.
Although the courts rarely dirty their hands by meting out so-called Rule 11 punishments, Judge Saylor’s initial reaction to this specific lawsuit suggests that a much stronger reaction could be coming later.
LesBaker
Mr. Savant
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2012
- Messages
- 17,460
- Name
- Les
What a skank......I'm amazed that security didn't tell her to cover up that shit and take that sign away. Does that dumb bitch not know that kids are all over the stadium.
Yikes.......sadly she doesn't feel the least bit ashamed I bet.
-X-
Medium-sized Lebowski
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 35,576
- Name
- The Dude
That wasn't a waste of the court's resources at all.
Now appeal and take it all the way to the Supreme Court so you can waste more taxpayer dollars with ridiculously frivolous lawsuits.
D-bags.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 29,836
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...s-to-restore-patriots-first-round-draft-pick/
Judge refuses to restore Patriots’ first-round draft pick
Posted by Mike Florio on April 9, 2016
AP
A group of Patriots fans has sued the NFL in an effort to restore the first-round draft pick that was confiscated as part of the #Deflategate punishment. A judge has quickly chimed in regarding an attempt to get the pick back in time for this month’s draft.
Via the Boston Herald, Judge F. Dennis Saylor has summarily denied the request to replenish the pick pending the outcome of the litigation.
“After reviewing the complaint, it appears highly unlikely that plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of any of their claims,” Judge Saylor wrote.
It was as dramatic a slam dunk as a court can deliver.
“The Court is denying plaintiffs’ motion without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing or an opposition brief,” the order explains. “However, the federal courts are courts of limited resources, funded by the taxpayers, and it would not be a prudent expenditure of those resources to permit the motion to progress to the hearing stage.”
Judge Saylor’s assessment of the lawsuit hints strongly at the possibility of an award of litigation costs and other penalties against Seth Carey, the Maine lawyer who signed the civil complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit frivolous filings, allowing for a wide range of sanctions.
Although the courts rarely dirty their hands by meting out so-called Rule 11 punishments, Judge Saylor’s initial reaction to this specific lawsuit suggests that a much stronger reaction could be coming later.
No surprise. This is when I chuckle when people flip out about frivolous lawsuits. The vast majority of judges aren't incompetent. They recognize when a lawsuit has merit and when it doesn't. There are rules in place that will punish attorneys (severely in some cases) for filing frivolous suits.
I'm actually shocked that they even have standing to sue here. But they were idiots to pursue this in the first place.