Evans et al v. Arizona Cardinals Football Club, LLC et al
Filing
224
ORDER GRANTING #212 MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Hon. William Alsup. Motions due by 6/1/2017. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ETOPIA EVANS, et al.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Plaintiffs,
12
13
14
15
No. C 16-01030 WHA
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO DISMISS AND FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL
CLUB, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
/
16
17
INTRODUCTION
18
Defendants in this putative class action move to dismiss most claims in the second
19
amended complaint and for summary judgment as to most claims surviving dismissal. The
20
motion is GRANTED.
21
22
STATEMENT
This is an action against the 32 member clubs of the National Football League by twelve
23
retired NFL players and the estate of a thirteenth. The roster of plaintiffs and array of asserted
24
claims have been refined through both amendments and motion practice. Although we remain
25
at the pleading stage, substantial discovery has already been taken. The procedural history of
26
this litigation and plaintiffs’ sweeping background allegations about the NFL as a whole that
27
have featured in each iteration of their complaint have been set forth in detail in prior orders
28
(see Dkt. Nos. 168 at 1–3; 175 at 1–3) and need not be repeated here. Recent events directly
informing the instant motion, however, merit brief summary.
1
On November 30, 2016, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, which totaled
2
approximately one hundred pages and asserted RICO and conspiracy claims in addition to
3
claims for intentional misrepresentation and concealment (Dkt. No. 136). The clubs moved to
4
dismiss (Dkt. No. 139). On February 3, 2017, a prior order granted the motion in part. That
5
order dismissed all RICO and conspiracy claims without leave to amend (see also Dkt. No. 175)
6
and dismissed the intentional misrepresentation and concealment claims as to all but eight clubs
7
with leave to amend (Dkt. No. 168 at 19–20). The order emphasized that “a defendant club
8
should only have to defend against claims pled properly against it. That the amended complaint
9
is adequate as to some clubs does not somehow make it adequate as to all clubs” (id. at 17).
The order also made clear — citing plaintiffs’ counsel’s statement that they could “amend [the
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
complaint] to any degree of particularity” required (Dkt. No. 169 at 40:6–40:7) — that “this
12
[would] be plaintiffs’ last opportunity to amend, so they should plead their best case in all
13
respects” (Dkt. No. 168 at 19–20).
14
Plaintiffs then filed their second amended complaint, which exceeds its predecessor in
15
length and asserts claims only for intentional misrepresentation and concealment (Dkt. No.
16
189). The clubs move to dismiss most claims and for summary judgment as to most claims that
17
survive dismissal (Dkt. No. 212). This order follows full briefing and oral argument.
18
19
20
ANALYSIS
1.
EXTRANEOUS ALLEGATIONS.
As a preliminary matter, by a conservative estimate, over half of the second amended
21
complaint consists of allegations inapposite to plaintiffs’ actual claims for relief. Much of the
22
second amended complaint is dedicated to essentially repeating the same sweeping criticisms
23
and accusations, directed against the NFL as a whole, that permeated plaintiffs’ prior pleadings.
24
The critical section of the second amended complaint setting forth particularized allegations
25
concerning individual players and clubs consists of less than 50 pages.
26
Even within that section, only a fraction of the allegations actually pertain to plaintiffs;
27
the rest concern putative class members. But as the undersigned judge has repeatedly noted,
28
this is not yet a class action (e.g., Dkt. No. 169 at 26:23–27:2). And as a recent order ruled,
2
1
plaintiffs do not have leave to patch up weaknesses in their pleadings by expanding their
2
numbers at this stage (see Dkt. No. 175). Nor can they shore up their own claims for relief
3
against the individual clubs they played for by piling on allegations as to other putative class
4
members. It is important at the outset to determine whether the named plaintiffs can state
5
claims for relief before deciding whether or not they can represent a class.
6
Additionally, the second amended complaint is replete with extensive and incendiary
medication violated the Controlled Substances Act and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act),
9
openly flouting the parameters set by the February 3 order. Indeed, the second amended
10
complaint’s very first paragraph states, “Plaintiffs bring this action for redress of injuries
11
For the Northern District of California
allegations of conspiracy and general illegality (e.g., that the NFL’s handling and distribution of
8
United States District Court
7
resulting from a conspiracy perpetrated by the 32 defendant clubs . . . that comprise the
12
National Football League” (Dkt. No. 189 at 1 (emphasis added)). To repeat, plaintiffs do not
13
have leave to re-plead any conspiracy claims (see Dkt. Nos. 168, 175). The only claims for
14
relief asserted here are for intentional misrepresentation and concealment by individual clubs.
15
16
17
18
This order recognizes the possibility that plaintiffs made the deliberate choice to proceed
this way. The second amended complaint makes this notable comment (Dkt. No. 189 at 4):
8.
Plaintiffs agree, and commit now (they would contend they
have already done so) to working with the Clubs on this problem
[of painkiller abuse in the NFL]. In any event, this should be
considered a standing invitation to do so.
19
20
21
22
9.
But until Plaintiffs get that call, all they can do (if they are
to do anything at all) is proceed with their well-pled allegations
that Defendants’ actions violate the Controlled Substances Act
(“CSA”) and/or Food Drug & Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) . . . their
implementing regulations, and analogous state laws and that their
omissions and concealment as detailed herein harmed Plaintiffs
and the proposed class.
23
So perhaps the bloat of inapposite allegations is the product of some advocacy-based agenda
24
rather than any attempt to comply with pleading requirements. For present purposes, however,
25
this order makes clear at the outset that what matters is not whether plaintiffs have drawn
26
attention to widespread misconduct in the NFL but whether each plaintiff has properly pled
27
claims for relief against each individual club and, if so, whether those claims survive summary
28
3
1
judgment. Accordingly, allegations not directed to the issues at hand, no matter how extensive,
2
will not be considered.
3
4
Having established the foregoing, this order turns to the merits of the clubs’ motion.
2.
MOTION TO DISMISS.
5
A.
Legal Framework.
6
As before, there is no dispute that plaintiffs’ claims sound in fraud, so Rule 9(b) applies
7
and requires plaintiffs to “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud,”
8
although “[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged
9
generally.” See Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2009). Averments of
fraud must be accompanied by “the who, what, when, where, and how” of the alleged
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
misconduct. Ibid. This pleading standard applies to both claims of fraud based on
12
misrepresentation and those based on nondisclosure. Id. at 1126–27.
13
Plaintiffs incorrectly contend Rule 9(b) “does not apply in its full force to . . .
14
concealment claims” (Dkt. No. 216 at 4). Circumstances constituting fraud by omission or
15
nondisclosure must still be pled with particularity, though they may be less specific or precise
16
insofar as they do not involve affirmative acts. See In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., Case
17
No. 15-MD-02617-LHK, 2016 WL 3029783, at *35 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2016) (Judge Lucy
18
Koh). For example, plaintiffs may state that concealment occurred over a particular period of
19
time rather than on a specific date, but they may not simply fail to state “when” the alleged
20
concealment occurred.
21
Although the extensive, disorganized, frequently boilerplate, and sometimes
22
contradictory statements in the second amended complaint and plaintiffs’ opposition brief make
23
it difficult to understand specific claims for relief asserted against individual clubs, this order
24
addresses three theories of liability discernible from plaintiffs’ allegations. First, each club
25
allegedly concealed facts concerning medication given to plaintiffs. Second, each club
26
allegedly concealed the illegality of their actions, i.e., failed to disclose the fact that they were
27
breaking various laws. Third, each club intentionally misrepresented that they cared about and
28
prioritized plaintiffs’ health and safety.
4
1
As before, it is unclear whether Maryland or California law applies to plaintiffs’ claims
2
but the substantive elements for present purposes are the same either way (see Dkt. No. 168 at
3
10). In addition to pleading that each club intentionally misrepresented or concealed
4
something, the second amended complaint must plead that at least one plaintiff justifiably relied
5
on each misrepresentation or concealment and suffered damages as a result. See, e.g., Robinson
6
Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal.4th 979, 990 (2004) (elements of fraud); Lloyd v.
7
Gen. Motors Corp., 916 A.2d 257, 274 (Md. 2007) (elements of concealment); Brass Metal
8
Prods., Inc. v. E-J Enters., Inc., 984 A.2d 361, 386 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2009) (elements of
9
intentional misrepresentation).
B.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Plaintiffs’ first theory of liability is that “the Clubs concealed material facts relating to
Concealment (re Medication).
12
the Medications” (Dkt. No. 216 at 5). The second amended complaint alleges at length that the
13
clubs dispensed medication to plaintiffs without making legally required disclosures, e.g., about
14
side effects, risks, or appropriate directions (see Dkt. No. 189 at 61–105). The second amended
15
complaint does not, however, allege that any plaintiff except Jeffrey Graham actually relied on
16
this concealment and would have behaved differently had some legally required disclosure been
17
made. According to the second amended complaint, Graham received his first anti-
18
inflammatory injection in the NFL from James Bradley, a team doctor with the Pittsburgh
19
Steelers. Graham said that “if he had been told about the risks and long term consequences,” he
20
would not have taken the shot (Dkt. No. 189 at 97).1
Assuming for the sake of argument that this brief and conclusory statement suffices to
21
22
plead reliance, the second amended complaint still fails to plead causation as to Graham’s
23
concealment claim against the Steelers. The second amended complaint alleges that Graham
24
has suffered the following damage (id. at 72–73 (emphasis added)):
25
1
26
27
28
During oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel claimed, “If [the clubs] told [plaintiffs] the scheme was
illegal, the plaintiffs would not have taken the drugs in the volume they took them. We allege that in Paragraph
350” (Dkt. No. 223 at 10:18–10:21). Paragraph 350 of the second amended complaint contains no such
allegation — or, indeed, any allegation specific to the named plaintiffs. It states simply, “The Class Members
reasonably believed the Clubs would not act illegally and, in doing so, injure the Class Members and put them
at risk of substantial and continuing future injuries” (Dkt. No. 189 at 120). This does not even come close to
alleging reliance as described by plaintiffs’ counsel.
5
1
2
3
4
5
Mr. Graham now lives in constant pain. He has pain in both
shoulders, neck, hips, lower back, both elbows, both hamstrings,
his fingers, wrists, left toe and right knee. He cannot stand for
long periods and needs special shoes to lessen the pain. He is stiff
and sore all day. He cannot sleep at night, moving from bed to
floor to couch throughout the night. Mr. Graham struggles to
control his weight due to his limited ability to exercise. He
believes his current pain is directly attributable to various injuries
suffered during his NFL career.
6
But the second amended complaint does not even remotely suggest that Graham suffered any of
7
the foregoing damage as a result of the anti-inflammatory injection that he would not have
8
taken had he been told about “the risks and long term consequences” thereof. On the contrary,
9
the second amended complaint expressly alleges that Graham “believes his current pain is
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
directly attributable to various injuries suffered during his NFL career.”
During oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel claimed ten of the named plaintiffs “have
12
internal organ claims in the complaint, of different kinds,” based on the theory that their use of
13
medication in the NFL caused internal organ failures and other “internal damage” (as opposed
14
to musculoskeletal injury) (see Dkt. No. 223 at 22:2–24:6). Plaintiffs’ counsel proffered the
15
example of plaintiff Chris Goode, who — according to counsel — “had to remove a seven-
16
pound tumor” from his kidney in 2005. (Actually, the second amended complaint says Goode
17
had to “remove half of his kidney along with [a] malignant tumor” in 2015 (Dkt. No. 189 at
18
83).) The undersigned judge then asked plaintiffs’ counsel to identify specific allegations
19
giving rise to any plausible inference that Goode’s use of medication in the NFL actually caused
20
his tumor. In response, plaintiffs’ counsel took aim with birdshot at an entire universe of
21
speculative medical effects, stating, “An abundance of the drugs can produce harm to certain
22
organs . . . we have a lot of experts that we are consulting who are talking about the impact of
23
excessive dosages of drugs on various organs in the human body” (Dkt. No. 223 at 23:4–23:10).
24
This nebulous and wholly speculative statement is, of course, useless as an allegation of
25
medical causation. The undersigned judge pressed the question, asking, “does the complaint
26
say that they took the tumor out; they did a biopsy . . . the doctors concluded that the tumor was
27
the result of too many drugs? Or was that just the lawyer speculating . . . ?” Plaintiffs’ counsel
28
replied, “The doctors have not said that.” The undersigned judge then asked how plaintiffs
6
1
could “just arbitrarily blame the drugs.” Plaintiffs’ counsel — misleadingly — replied, “Your
2
Honor, these are tumors that are appearing in 30- and 40-year-olds. These are highly unusual
3
cases.” This statement insinuated that plaintiffs had alleged multiple occurrences of unusual
4
tumors when, in fact, Goode is the only one to allege any incidence of cancer. The undersigned
5
judge then asked, “How many tumor cases do we have in the complaint?” Instead of answering
6
the question, plaintiffs’ counsel deflected, stating, “Your Honor, we have Ashmore with kidney
7
and heart. We have Wunsch with pituitary problems and liver problems. We have Killings
8
with gallbladder. . . . These are just problems with the organ” (id. at 23:11–24:6).
9
The foregoing exchange suggests that plaintiffs think they can plead the causation
element of their concealment claim simply by pointing to some recent internal organ-related
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
problem — with no allegation whatsoever concerning etiology (even after extensive discovery
12
and consultation with “a lot of experts”) — and baldly asserting their belief that it directly
13
resulted from their use of medication in the NFL. Not so.
14
First, even if counsel’s misleading insinuation that the lead plaintiffs suffer from an
15
unusual array of such ailments proved true, that alone would mean little. These lead plaintiffs
16
were carefully chosen from a pool of over a thousand putative class members (see Dkt. No. 175
17
(discussing the evolution of plaintiffs’ lineup over the history of this litigation)). That they
18
suffer from certain medical ailments ostensibly informed their selection. Absent well-pled
19
factual allegations to the contrary, they should not be mistaken for a representative sample
20
indicating some causal nexus between use of medication in the NFL and subsequent “internal
21
organ” problems.
22
Second, even assuming (and this has not yet been established) that the lead plaintiffs and
23
their various ailments are a representative sample of the overall population of NFL retirees, that
24
alone would still be insufficient to plead causation. Statistically, in any population as large as
25
NFL retirees, some incidence of tumors and other organ-related ailments is to be expected, so
26
the mere presence of such ailments does not speak to etiology. Additional factual allegations
27
are required to indicate causation. Tellingly, the second amended complaint alleges (Dkt. No.
28
189 at 50 (emphasis added)):
7
1
197. The constant pain that Plaintiffs and other players
experience from their injuries while playing for the Clubs leads
directly to a host of health problems.
2
3
198. Leading experts recognize that former professional football
players who suffer from permanent musculoskeletal injuries often
cannot exercise due to pain or other physical limitations, leading to
a more sedentary lifestyle and higher rates of obesity.
4
5
199. According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, obesity is linked to: coronary heart disease, type-2
diabetes, endometrial cancer, colon cancer, hypertension,
dyslipidemia, liver disease, gallbladder disease, sleep apnea,
respiratory problems and osteoarthritis.
6
7
8
200. Surveys of former NFL players confirm that they suffer
from significantly higher rates of all these disorders when
compared to the general population.
9
10
sustained in the NFL can cause obesity and related “internal” ailments, further undermining any
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
In other words, the second amended complaint itself claims that musculoskeletal injuries
11
12
suggestion that the mere presence of such ailments among NFL retirees implies etiology tracing
13
back to excessive use of medication. At best, the second amended complaint broadly claims
14
that certain drugs are generally associated with certain adverse side effects but fails to allege
15
any facts giving rise to a plausible inference that the lead plaintiffs’ particular ailments resulted
16
from their excessive use of medication in the NFL (see id. at 50–52).
17
In short, the second amended complaint fails to plead allegations showing causation as
18
to any suggested theory of liability based on “internal organ claims.” This order therefore
19
concludes plaintiffs have not properly pled any claim for relief based on a club’s alleged
20
concealment of material facts relating to medication.2
21
C.
Concealment (re Illegality).
22
Plaintiffs’ second theory of liability is that “the Clubs concealed material facts relating
23
to . . . the illegality of their scheme” (Dkt. No. 216 at 5). Much of the second amended
24
complaint is dedicated to alleging that the clubs’ handling and distribution of controlled
25
26
27
28
2
One exception is plaintiff Alphonso Carreker, who — unlike the other named plaintiffs — plausibly
pled causation linking his excessive use of medication to recent health problems. The second amended
complaint still fails to allege, however, that Carreker actually relied on any club’s concealment and would have
behaved differently had some legally required disclosure been given. His claim is thus sufficiently pled only
under plaintiffs’ intentional misrepresentation theory, discussed below (see Dkt. No. 168 at 14–15).
8
1
substances violated various laws and regulations. The second amended complaint also alleges
2
that the clubs knew their actions were illegal and took steps to conceal said illegal actions (e.g.,
3
Dkt. No. 189 at 106–08). The second amended complaint does not, however, allege that any
4
plaintiff relied on this concealment and would have behaved differently had they known that a
5
club’s actions violated some law or regulation. Even if it did, as the February 3 order noted, it
6
would strain credulity to further suggest that any plaintiff suffered damages as a result of a
7
club’s failure to disclose the technical illegality of its actions (see Dkt. No. 168 at 11–12).
8
9
In short, plaintiffs have also not properly pled any claim for relief based on a club’s
alleged concealment of “the illegality of their scheme.”
D.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Plaintiffs’ third theory of liability is taken from the February 3 order. That order,
Intentional Misrepresentation.
12
construing the first amended complaint in plaintiffs’ favor, interpreted its allegations as
13
potentially pleading that (1) the clubs represented that they cared about and prioritized players’
14
health and safety but acted to the contrary, (2) plaintiffs took medication and continued playing
15
while injured (or, in Carreker’s case, regularly used excessive amounts of medication) in
16
reliance on the clubs’ fraudulent conduct, and (3) plaintiffs suffered their alleged damages as a
17
result (see Dkt. No. 216 at 8–9). Plaintiffs have expressly adopted this theory as the sole basis
18
for the second amended complaint’s intentional misrepresentation claims (id. at 8).
19
Before proceeding further, however, this order rejects plaintiffs’ attempt to interpret the
20
February 3 order as obviating any need to plead proximate causation. According to plaintiffs,
21
the February 3 order found claims properly pled as to Jerry Wunsch and Jeffrey Graham even
22
though those claims did not tie the plaintiffs’ damages to any club’s actions. Thus, plaintiffs
23
contend, the second amended complaint can properly plead intentional misrepresentation simply
24
by identifying specific injuries from which they currently suffer, even if said injuries are not
25
tied to any club’s actions (Dkt. No. 216 at 10–11). This order disagrees.
26
The first amended complaint alleged the Seattle Seahawks gave Wunsch medication to
27
get him through a game in 2003 even though he repeatedly said he could not play (it did not
28
further describe why Wunsch felt unable to play that particular game but mentioned elsewhere
9
1
that he had ankle problems). It further alleged Wunsch now suffers from “pain from all of his
2
joints” and “shooting nerve pains,” which could plausibly encompass damage sustained or
3
exacerbated as a result of that game. Similarly, the first amended complaint alleged the San
4
Diego Chargers gave Graham medication to get through most of the 2000 season with a broken
5
transverse process in his back. It further alleged Graham “now lives in constant pain,” which
6
could plausibly encompass damage sustained or exacerbated as a result of that season.
7
In short, the first amended complaint’s allegations as to Wunsch and Graham did not, as
8
plaintiffs suggest, feature damages wholly divorced from the clubs’ alleged misconduct. True,
9
specific factual allegations in different claims may permit stronger or weaker showings of
proximate causation, but this does not support plaintiffs’ position that proper pleading requires
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
no plausible nexus whatsoever between their alleged damages and the clubs’ alleged
12
misconduct. Nothing in the February 3 order or controlling law supports such an untenable
13
standard. Indeed, plaintiffs’ own “plain reading” of the theory of liability articulated in the
14
February 3 order requires that “a Club ‘acted contrary to their representations by driving players
15
to return to play at the cost of their health and safety’” (Dkt. No. 216 at 9 (emphasis added)).
16
The scope of plaintiffs’ intentional misrepresentation theory also requires clarification.
17
During oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel stated, “There are 14 clubs that we are not alleging
18
this affirmative-misappropriation [sic] claim against. It’s only 18 total clubs, nine of which
19
have already been adjudicated, and nine more which we have said — we have conformed with
20
the particularity requirement. But as to 14 others, there is no claim under affirmative
21
misrepresentation as to them” (Dkt. No. 223 at 7:14–7:19). This statement contradicts the
22
second amended complaint itself, which asserts intentional misrepresentation claims by “All
23
Plaintiffs Against All Defendants” (Dkt. No. 189 at 114).3
24
25
3
26
27
28
Additional inaccuracies in counsel’s statement require clarification. The February 3 order declined
to dismiss nine claims against eight clubs — Massey/Lions, Ashmore/Raiders, Carreker/Packers,
Carreker/Broncos, Wunsch/Seahawks, Harris/Dolphins, Graham/Chargers, Killings/Vikings, and
Walker/Chargers (Dkt. No. 168 at 14–16). According to plaintiffs’ opposition brief, the second amended
complaint adds eleven claims — Ashmore/Rams, Ashmore/Redskins, Graham/Bears, Graham/Jets,
Graham/Eagles, Harris/Browns, King/Bills, King/Lions, King/Titans, Sadowski/Bengals, and Massey/Saints —
that extend plaintiffs’ intentional misrepresentation allegations to ten more clubs (Dkt. No. 216 at 1–2 n.1, 11).
10
1
Although the foregoing blip in the second amended complaint technically says
2
otherwise, this order accepts plaintiffs’ more substantive representations, both in briefing and
3
during oral argument, that they now assert intentional misrepresentation claims against only
4
eighteen clubs — the Lions, Raiders, Packers, Broncos, Seahawks, Dolphins, Chargers,
5
Vikings, Rams, Redskins, Bears, Jets, Eagles, Browns, Bills, Titans, Bengals, and Saints. The
6
other fourteen clubs are off the hook for intentional misrepresentation.
7
With that clarification, this order turns back to the substance of plaintiffs’ intentional
8
misrepresentation theory. The second amended complaint carries over most of the first
9
amended complaint’s allegations that the February 3 order cited as showing (1) the clubs
represented that they cared about and prioritized players’ health and safety, and (2) plaintiffs
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
believed such representations (see Dkt. No. 168 at 12–13; 189 at 18, 21, 115, 119–20). The
12
nine claims sufficiently pled in the first amended complaint are pled with equal or greater
13
particularity in the second amended complaint. This order therefore concludes those nine
14
claims survive dismissal.
15
The second amended complaint also pleads the following allegations with particularity:
16
•
While playing for the Los Angeles/St. Louis Rams on September
17
17, 1995, plaintiff Darryl Ashmore ruptured a disc in his neck.
18
Club doctors and trainers, including Jim Anderson, kept Ashmore
19
on the field for that game and the remainder of the season by giving
20
him medication. Ashmore now suffers from “constant pain in his
21
neck” (id. at 85-86).
22
•
While playing for the Tennessee Titans in 2007, plaintiff Eric King
23
sustained numerous injuries, including breaking his forearm. When
24
an injury occurred during a game, club trainers Brad Brown, Don
25
Moseley, Geoff Kaplan, Jason Williams, or Jon Takahashi gave
26
King painkillers and anti-inflammatory drugs and told him to “get
27
back in the game.” After King aggravated his forearm injury in
28
2008, the aforementioned club trainers gave him daily doses of
11
1
Toradol and other painkillers so he could keep playing. He had two
2
surgeries on his forearm during his NFL career and now suffers
3
from “constant pain,” including in his forearm (id. at 70, 104).
4
•
While playing for the New Orleans Saints in the middle of the 1989
5
season, plaintiff Robert Massey rolled his ankle during a game. He
6
got a Toradol injection from club trainers Dean Kleinschmidt and
7
Kevin Mangum, then finished the game. He now suffers constant
8
pain from, among other things, his ankles (Dkt. No. 189 at 81, 90).
9
In summary, the second amended complaint sufficiently pleads intentional
misrepresentation claims between Ashmore/Raiders, Ashmore/Rams, Carreker/Packers,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Carreker/Broncos, Harris/Dolphins, Graham/Chargers, Killings/Vikings, King/Titans,
12
Massey/Lions, Massey/Saints, Walker/Chargers, and Wunsch/Seahawks.
13
3.
14
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
The clubs also move for summary judgment as to most claims surviving dismissal on the
15
basis that said claims are time-barred. Both sides agree that Maryland law applies, and that the
16
applicable limitations period is three years (Dkt. Nos. 212 at 15; 216 at 13).
17
Maryland follows the discovery rule, under which the limitations period starts running
18
“when the plaintiff has knowledge of circumstances which would cause a reasonable person in
19
the position of the plaintiff to undertake an investigation which, if pursued with reasonable
20
diligence, would have led to knowledge of the alleged tort.” Lumsden v. Design Tech Builders,
21
Inc., 749 A.2d 796, 802 (Md. 2000) (quotation omitted). Importantly, “[k]nowledge of facts . . .
22
not actual knowledge of their legal significance, starts the statute of limitations running . . . .
23
The discovery rule, in other words, applies to discovery of facts, not to discovery of law.
24
Knowledge of the law is presumed.” Moreland v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 831 A.2d 1091,
25
1096 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2003) (citing Doe v. Archdiocese of Wash., 689 A.2d 634, 641–43
26
(Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997), for the proposition that “a cause of action in tort generally accrues
27
at the same time the act that constitutes the tort occurs — regardless whether the victim
28
12
1
recognizes the act as legally wrong or comprehends the full extent of the harm”). Plaintiffs
2
filed this action in May 2015, so their claims are time-barred unless accrued after May 2012.
3
Applying the foregoing principles here, almost all of plaintiffs’ surviving claims are
4
clearly time-barred. With only two exceptions, those claims are predicated on damages
5
supposedly attributable to musculoskeletal injuries sustained prior to 2012. The two exceptions
6
are Walker’s claim against the Chargers, which is based on an ankle sprain sustained in 2014,
7
and Carreker’s claims against the Packers and the Broncos, which are based on continuous
8
excessive use of medication instead of musculoskeletal injuries sustained in the NFL and also
9
may have accrued after May 2012.
In addition to noting the dated nature of plaintiffs’ musculoskeletal injuries, the clubs
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
point out that, prior to May 2012, most of the plaintiffs also filed workers’ compensation claims
12
for the very same injuries they assert here. Both arguments are well-taken — so much so, in
13
fact, that plaintiffs’ opposition brief responds by attempting to altogether disavow the second
14
amended complaint’s boilerplate but insistently repeated allegations that each plaintiff believes
15
their current injuries are “directly attributable” to past injuries sustained in the NFL and covered
16
up by medication (Dkt. No. 216 at 19–20 (bold and italics in original, footnote omitted)):
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Plaintiffs’ causes of action seek recovery for later-in-life injuries
they sustained as a result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and
concealment in connection with the provision and administration
of the dangerous Medications. They are not seeking recovery for
injuries they may have sustained as a result of any other cause. In
other words, the injuries at issue in this case are not the injuries
that Plaintiffs sustained on the field as a result of playing football,
and thus, are not the injuries that were at issue in Plaintiffs’
workers compensation or disability claims. The injuries for which
Plaintiffs seek compensation fall into two discrete categories: (1)
internal organ injuries; and (2) musculoskeletal injuries . . . the
cause of those injuries — the exorbitant amount of often illegally
dispensed Medications — were not and could not have [been]
discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence until shortly
before Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, after conferring with counsel.
25
Even if this order accepted the foregoing position, it would be of no help to plaintiffs. If
26
the injuries underlying plaintiffs’ claims were attributable to excessive use of medication, rather
27
than to musculoskeletal damage sustained as a result of playing with injuries, that would
28
eviscerate the theory of liability identified in the February 3 order and adopted as the sole basis
13
1
of plaintiffs’ intentional misrepresentation claims in the second amended complaint. In that
2
case, plaintiffs’ intentional misrepresentation claims (with the exception of Carreker’s) would
3
simply be dismissed rather than disposed of via summary judgment.
4
5
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the clubs’ motion is GRANTED. All claims save and except
6
those for intentional misrepresentation between Ashmore/Raiders, Ashmore/Rams,
7
Carreker/Packers, Carreker/Broncos, Graham/Chargers, Harris/Dolphins, Killings/Vikings,
8
King/Titans, Massey/Saints, Massey/Lions, Walker/Chargers, and Wunsch/Seahawks are
9
DISMISSED. For the reasons previously stated in the February 3 order, this dismissal is without
further leave to amend. Plaintiffs’ counsel have had ample opportunity to plead and the time
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
has come to deem the pleadings settled.
12
Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of the clubs as to all claims that survive
13
dismissal save and except those for intentional misrepresentation between Carreker/Packers,
14
Carreker/Broncos, and Walker/Chargers.
15
16
The deadline for plaintiffs to file their class certification motion, to be heard on a 49-day
briefing schedule, is continued from May 18 to JUNE 1.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
Dated: May 15, 2017.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?