Parrish et al v. National Football League Players Incorporated

Filing 277

RESPONSE to PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT PURSUANT TO APRIL 29, 2008 COURT ORDER by National Football League Players Incorporated, National Football League Players Association. (Padnos, Todd) (Filed on 5/1/2008)

Parrish et al v. National Football League Players Incorporated

Doc. 277

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111

Todd Padnos (Bar No. 208202) [e-mail] DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone] Jeffrey L. Kessler (pro hac vice) [e-mail] David G. Feher (pro hac vice) [e-mail] David Greenspan (pro hac vice) [e-mail] DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone] Kenneth L. Steinthal (pro hac vice) [e-mail] WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone] Bruce S. Meyer (pro hac vice) [e-mail] WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants National Football League Players Association and National Football League Players Incorporated d/b/a Players Inc UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION BERNARD PAUL PARRISH, HERBERT ANTHONY ADDERLEY, WALTER ROBERTS III, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION and NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS INCORPORATED d/b/a/ PLAYERS INC, Defendants. Case No. C 07 0943 WHA DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT PURSUANT TO APRIL 29, 2008 COURT ORDER

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP

Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Statement Pursuant to April 29, 2008 Court Order

Civ. Action No. C07 0943 WHA
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111

Defendants hereby submit their Response to Plaintiffs' Statement Pursuant to April 29, 2008 Court Order, filed on April 30, 2008. Defendants have not taken the position that the application of the law of Virginia or the District of Columbia will satisfy the constitutional due process requirements under Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985). Rather, it has been and remains Defendants' position that the application of a single jurisdiction's law to a nationwide class, whether it be the law of California, Virginia, or the District of Columbia, would violate the due process rights of absent class members. See Defs.' Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. for Class Certification at 29-30 ("[T]he laws of all interested jurisdictions of the "nationwide" putative class members must be applied, and individual questions of law predominate."). Defendants therefore do not join in Plaintiffs' stipulation. Date: May 1, 2008 DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP BY: _ /S/ Jeffrey L. Kessler_ _______ Jeffrey L. Kessler Attorneys for Defendants

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Statement Pursuant to April 29, 2008 Court Order Civ. Action No. C07 0943 WHA

Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP