JENKINS et al v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION et al

Filing 245

ORDER by Hon. Claudia Wilken denying 201 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

IN RE: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION ATHLETIC
GRANT-IN-AID CAP ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
________________________________/
MARTIN JENKINS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

14
15
16

v.

No. C 14-2758 CW
ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

17
18

No. 14-md-2541 CW

Defendants.
________________________________/

19
20

Defendants, the National Collegiate Athletic Association

21

(NCAA) and a group of Division I conferences, have filed a motion

22

for judgment on the pleadings, seeking an order dismissing Jenkins

23

in its entirety and dismissing the portion of the consolidated

24

action that seeks injunctive relief.

25

have filed a consolidated opposition and Defendants have filed a

26

reply.

27

case and argument, the Court DENIES the motion.

28

Plaintiffs in both actions

Having considered the parties’ papers, the record in this

1
2

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are student-athletes who played NCAA Division I

3

Football Bowl Subdivision football1 and men’s and women’s

4

basketball between March 5, 2014 and the present.

5

Plaintiffs’ challenges relate to NCAA restrictions on the

6

compensation of student-athletes for their athletic performance.

7

The NCAA sets a cap on the grant-in-aid (GIA) that student-

8

athletes may receive.2

9

the GIA was capped at the value of tuition, fees, room and board

At the time these complaints were filed,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

and required course books.

11

litigation, the NCAA permitted conferences to allow schools to

12

compensate student-athletes with GIAs for up to their cost of

13

attendance.

14

After Plaintiffs initiated this

Consolidated Plaintiffs and Jenkins Plaintiffs allege in

15

their complaints that the NCAA and its member institutions3

16

violate federal antitrust law by conspiring to impose the cap on

17

the amount of monetary and in-kind compensation a school may

18
1

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The NCAA organizes member schools into Divisions I, II and
III. Division I football includes two subdivisions: the Football
Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and the Football Championship Subdivision
(FCS).
2

A grant-in-aid is a scholarship or form of financial aid
that the NCAA does not consider “pay or the promise of pay for
athletics skill” and that meets certain NCAA requirements. See
2014-15 NCAA Manual at 57 (Bylaw 12.01.4); 189 (Bylaw 15.02.5).
3

Jenkins Plaintiffs name as conference Defendants the
Atlantic Coast Conference; the Big 12 Conference; the Big Ten
Conference; the Pac-12 Conference; and the Southeastern
Conference. Consolidated Plaintiffs name all of those as well as
the American Athletic Conference; Conference USA; the Mid-American
Conference; the Mountain West Conference; the Sun Belt Conference;
and the Western Athletic Conference.
2

1

provide a student-athlete.

2

NCAA’s cap on compensation, schools would compete in recruiting

3

student-athletes by providing more generous compensation.

4

Plaintiffs seek an injunction against the NCAA’s rules limiting

5

compensation for student-athletes.

6

in addition to an injunction, damages for the difference between

7

the GIAs awarded and the cost of attendance.

8

A.

9

Plaintiffs assert that, without the

Consolidated Plaintiffs seek,

O’Bannon v. NCAA
In O’Bannon v. NCAA, a plaintiff class alleged that the NCAA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

and its members conspired to fix at zero the amounts paid to

11

Division I men’s football or basketball players for the use of

12

their names, images and likenesses (NILs) in violation of the

13

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.

14

entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the

15

plaintiffs, determining that the NCAA’s rules were an unlawful

16

restraint of trade.

17

restrictive alternatives to the NCAA’s rules and enjoined the NCAA

18

and its member schools from agreeing to (1) prohibit deferred

19

compensation of an amount less than $5,000 per year for the

20

licensing or use of the plaintiffs’ names, images, and likenesses,

21

or (2) prohibit scholarships up to the full cost of attendance at

22

the plaintiffs’ schools.

23

to the Ninth Circuit.

24

decided the NCAA’s appeal.

25

of an antitrust violation and affirmed the remedy relating to

26

scholarships.

27

permanent injunction related to deferred compensation.

28

v. NCAA, 802 F.3d 1049, 1079 (9th Cir. 2015).

Following a bench trial, the Court

The Court concluded that there were less

The NCAA timely filed a notice of appeal

On September 30, 2015, the Ninth Circuit
The panel affirmed the Court’s finding

However, the majority reversed the portion of the

3

O’Bannon

Both parties’

1

petitions for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme

2

Court are currently pending.

3
4

LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

5

that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed--but early enough not to

6

delay trial--a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.”

7

Such a motion, like a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

8

claim, addresses the sufficiency of a pleading.

Judgment on the

9
pleadings may be granted when the moving party clearly establishes
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact
remains to be resolved and that the moving party is entitled to

13

judgment as a matter of law.

14

Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1989).

15

sufficiency of a pleading, the well-plead allegations of the non-

16

moving party are accepted as true, while any allegations of the

17

Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard
In testing the

moving party which have been denied are assumed to be false.

Id.

18
at 1550.

However, the court need not accept conclusory

19
20

allegations.

W. Mining Counsel v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th

21

Cir. 1981).

22

pleadings in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,

23

drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor, General

24

Conference Corp. of Seventh Day Adventists v. Seventh-Day

25

The court must view the facts presented in the

Adventist Congregational Church, 887 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir.

26
1989), but need not accept or make unreasonable inferences or
27
28
4

1
2

unwarranted deductions of fact.

McKinney v. De Bord, 507 F.2d

501, 504 (9th Cir. 1974).

3

DISCUSSION

4

Defendants argue that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in

5

O’Bannon forecloses Plaintiffs’ challenge to the NCAA’s current

6

rules because the Ninth Circuit held that “offering [student-

7

athletes] cash sums untethered to educational expenses” was not a

8

less restrictive alternative to the NCAA’s current rules under the

9

rule of reason.

802 F.3d at 1078.

The NCAA already permits its

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

members to offer GIA equal to the Cost of Attendance.

11

Plaintiffs point out, in this case, they also challenge rules

12

prohibiting the provision of other “benefits” and “in-kind”

13

compensation as well as cash compensation.

14

Complaint at ¶¶ 41-42; CAC at ¶ 192.

15

assert, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is not

16

well taken.

17

forecloses one type of relief Plaintiffs previously sought: cash

18

compensation untethered to educational expenses.

19

is binding on this Court, it does not provide the basis for

20

judgment on the pleadings.

21

are “designed to dispose of cases where the material facts are not

22

in dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking

23

to the substance of the pleadings and any judicially-noticed

24

facts.”

25

Cal.).

26

of relief Plaintiffs may seek but it does not provide a basis upon

27

which a judgment on the merits can be rendered.

However, as

See, e.g. Jenkins

Accordingly, as Plaintiffs

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in O’Bannon simply

While O’Bannon

Motions for judgment on the pleadings

Holloway v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 2009 WL 1533668, *3 (N.D.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in O’Bannon limits the types

28
5

1
2

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for judgment on

3

the pleadings is DENIED.

4

No. 14-2758, Docket No. 201)

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

(Case No. 14-2541, Docket No. 373; Case

6
7
8

Dated: August 5, 2016

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6