Hubbard v. Electronic Arts Inc

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 14 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Tommy Hubbard. For the reasons stated above, the Motions to Remand, [Doc. 14 in 2:09-CV-233 and Doc. 17 in 2:09-CV-234], are DENIED. Because they are deni ed, the plaintiffs request for attorneys fees is also DENIED. Defendants motions to strike the declaration of Dr. Fort, [Doc.19 in No. 2:09-CV-233 and Doc. 25 in No. 2:09-CV-234], are DENIED. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 7/18/2011. (RLC, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE

TOMMY HUBBARD,
on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 2:09-CV-233
and
2:09-CV-234

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
These matters are before the Court on Tommy Hubbard’s (“Hubbard” or
“plaintiff”) Motions to Remand, [Doc. 14 in 2:09-CV-233 (hereinafter referred to as
“Hubbard I”) and Doc. 17 in 2:09-CV-234 (hereinafter referred to as “Hubbard II”)].
Also before the Court is Electronic Arts, Inc.’s (“EA” or “defendant”) objection to and
motion to strike a declaration of Rodney Fort, Ph.D. which the plaintiff submitted in
his Combined Reply Memorandum in Support of Motions for Remand. The issue
regarding both Motions to Remand is whether the defendant has carried its burden to
show that the amount in controversy in each action meets or exceeds the $5 million
Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) threshold despite plaintiff’s disclaimers that the
class cannot recover more than $4,999,999.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). For the

reasons that follow, the Court finds that the defendant has met its burden in both cases,
and the Motions to Remand are DENIED. This Court reaches this conclusion even
considering the information contained in Dr. Fort’s declaration.
I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiff filed Hubbard I, an antitrust case, in the Circuit Court for
Washington County, Tennessee on September 4, 2009. He sued individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated. The counts charged include Count One, an
alleged violation of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act, and Count Two, an unjust
enrichment allegation. In sum, the plaintiff claims, “Through unlawful and anticompetitive agreements with the co-conspirators National Football League, the NFL
Players Union, Arena Football League and the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (“NCAA”), Electronic Arts, Inc. has driven its competition out of the
market for interactive football software . . . and has prevented additional competitors
from entering the market. As a direct result of these anticompetitive agreements, the
price of interactive football software has soared . . . .”1
The plaintiff filed Hubbard II on September 10, 2009, in the Circuit
Court for Washington County. The plaintiff, a current student-athlete at East

1

This case is similar to a case filed in United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, Pecover v. Electronic Arts, Inc., No: C08-02820.
-2-

Tennessee State University,2 sued EA “individually and on behalf of current studentathletes in Tennessee who competed for National Collegiate Athletic Association
(“NCAA”) member colleges or universities on those schools’ (1) ‘Division I’ men’s
basketball teams; and (2) ‘Football Bowl Subdivision’ (formerly know until 2006 as
‘Division I-A’) men’s football teams whose names, likenesses, images or identities
have been utilized, licensed, or sold interactive videogames and related software
products by Defendant.” The plaintiff alleges four counts: (1) Count One charges a
violation of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act, (2) Count Two charges a violation of
the Tennessee Protection of Personal Rights Act of 1984, (3) Count Three charges a
violation of Tennessee common law publicity rights, and (4) Count Four charges
unjust enrichment.3
Plaintiff’s counsel filed a related case which is worth noting. Counsel
filed Nuckles, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association in the Circuit Court for
Washington County, Tennessee on September 15, 2009. The plaintiffs were former
student-athletes who filed on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. They

2

At the time the Complaint was filed, Hubbard was a current student athlete. The Court notes
that it is unclear whether he is still a current athlete. The Court merely notes this fact, considering
how plaintiff’s counsel decided to divide up the various related class actions he filed. See Nuckles,
et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 2:09-CV-235 (suing NCAA by former student athletes).
3

This case is similar to two other cases in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Keller v. Electronic Arts, Inc., et al., CV-09-1967, and Edward C. O’Bannon
v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, et al., (CV-09-3329).
-3-

alleged four counts: (1) Count One charges a violation of the Tennessee Trade
Practices Act, (2) Count Two charges a violation of the Tennessee Protection of
Personal Rights Act of 1984, (3) Count Three charges a violation of Tennessee
common law publicity rights, and (4) Count Four charges unjust enrichment.4 All of
these counts are similar to the counts raised in Hubbard II. They differ in the nature
of the plaintiffs and the defendants sued.
The plaintiff has carefully worded the complaints in Hubbard I and II in
an attempt to avoid alleging any federal cause of action and to avoid the amount in
controversy requirements of diversity jurisdiction. The two Complaints state virtually
identical language regarding the amount in controversy.5 Thus, this Court will set
forth the language from Hubbard I only. The Complaint states:
Plaintiff asserts no claim under the law of the United States.
The amount in controversy as to the Plaintiff and each
individual member of the Proposed Class does not exceed
Seventy-four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine Dollars
($74,999.00) each, exclusive of interest and costs; and
Plaintiff disclaims compensatory damages, punitive
damages, declaratory, injunctive, equitable or other relief
greater than Seventy-Four Thousand Nine Hundred NinetyNine Dollars ($74,999.00) per individual Class member.
Further, Plaintiff and members of the Proposed Class limit
their aggregate class-wide claims for relief to less than Four
Million Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine Thousand Nine
4

This case is also factually similar to Keller and O’Bannon. See n. 3.

5

The amount in controversy disclaimer in Nuckles is also virtually identical.
-4-

Hundred Ninety-Nine Dollars ($4,999,999.00) and
specifically disclaim compensatory damages, punitive
damages, disgorgement, declaratory, injunctive, equitable
or other relief greater than Four Million Nine Hundred
Ninety-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine Dollars
($4,999,999.00).
II. ANALYSIS
Again, regarding both cases, the plaintiff argues that the defendant did
not carry its burden of showing that the amount in controversy is met. To determine
whether the amount in controversy has been satisfied, the Court must examine the
complaint at the time it was filed. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., v. Redcap Co.,
303 U.S. 283 (1938). “[T]he amount alleged in the complaint will suffice unless it
appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff in good faith cannot claim the
jurisdictional amount. A plaintiff in a diversity case may defeat removal to federal
court by suing for less than the jurisdictional amount.” Id. at 294. After all, “[i]t is
well established that the plaintiff is the ‘master of her complaint’ and can plead to
avoid federal jurisdiction.” Smith v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 505 F.3d 401,
407 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Ntional Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994,
998-99 (9th Cir. 2007)). Moreover, “[i]t is generally agreed in this circuit, that the
amount in controversy should be determined ‘from the perspective of the plaintiff,
with a focus on the economic value of the rights [she] seeks to protect.’” Woodmen
of the World/Omaha Woodmen Life Ins. Soc. v. Scarbro, 129 Fed. Appx. 194, 196 (6th
-5-

Cir. 2005) (quoting Buckeye Recyclers v. CHEP USA, 228 F.Supp.2d 818, 821 (S.D.
Ohio 2002)). To be sure, “[a] disclaimer in a complaint regarding the amount of
recoverable damages does not preclude a defendant from removing the matter to
federal court upon a demonstration that damages are ‘more likely than not’ to ‘meet
the amount in controversy requirement,’ but it can be sufficient absent adequate proof
from defendant that potential damages actually exceed the jurisdictional threshold.”
Smith, 505 F.3d at 407 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Williamson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 481
F.3d 369, 375 (6th Cir. 2007)).6
A. Hubbard I Motion to Remand
As stated, it is incumbent on the defendant in a removal petition to
establish that more likely than not the plaintiff’s claims meet the amount in
controversy requirement. As to Hubbard I, after the April 26, 2011 oral arguments
on the motion, the parties agreed that the defendant could supplement the record
regarding the number of videogames sold in Tennessee. The defendant did so, and the
plaintiff did not seek to take a discovery deposition regarding the supplemented
information, i.e. the declaration of Jacob Schatz. Thus, the plaintiff does not
challenge Mr. Schatz’s factual statements as inaccurate.

6

The plaintiff argues that the standard is a legal certainty. However, as this Court stated at
oral arguments in this case, Sixth Circuit precedent only requires a demonstration that is it “more
likely than not.” See Smith, 505 F.3d at 407.
-6-

In that declaration, Mr. Schatz stated that “since 2005, EA has sold at
least 681,497 copies of Madden NFL and 258,177 copies of NCAA Football to
Tennessee retailers for a total of at least 939,674 copies.” These figures do not
include games sold to GameStop, a national retailer of videogames that distributes in
Tennessee and one of the defendant’s largest retail partners. The other large partners
include Wal-Mart, Best Buy and Target. Mr. Schatz also supplied information
regarding sales to Tennessee consumers. Wal-Mart, Best Buy and Target stores sold
185,057 copies of Madden NFL 10, Madden NFL 11, NCAA Football 10 and NCAA
Football 11 in 2009 and 2010. These numbers do not include prior editions of
Madden NFL or NCAA Football, and they do not include sales figures for games sold
in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
The Complaint encompasses the time frame of “August 2005 until the
final disposition of this matter.” In addition, it alleges that EA charged $29.95 for its
flagship product Madden NFL. It further alleges that after the exclusive agreements
entered into by the defendant and alleged co-conspirators and after the effective
withdrawal of its only competitor, EA increased the price of the product to $49.99.
In addition, the Complaint states that EA “currently sells interactive football software
for up to $59.95.” Thus, the Complaint effectively alleges that as a result of the

-7-

alleged anticompetitve agreements, the overcharge is between $20.00 to $30.00.7
Taking the lowest possible amounts, i.e. $20.00 overcharge and 185,057
copies sold, and multiplying them together would yield damages of $3,701,140.00.
This falls short of the $5 million threshold. However, this is a very conservative
estimate. The overcharge alleged could be as much as $30.00. Also very important
to this analysis is the fact that the 185,057 sold underestimates that actual number
sold. As stated above, these numbers do not include prior editions of Madden NFL
or NCAA Football, and they do not include sales figures for games sold in 2005, 2006,
2007 and 2008. Furthermore, the number does not include those sold from one of
EA’s major partners. Considering all of these factors, this Court FINDS that the
defendant has shown that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy
requirement is met.8 Therefore, the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, [Doc. 14] is
DENIED.
B. Hubbard II Motion to Remand
In order to decide whether the defendant has carried its burden to show
7

At oral arguments, the plaintiff argued that this is not a correct conclusion. The plaintiff
argued that other factors come into play. The Court concludes, as it stated at the April 26, 2011
hearing, for the purposes of deciding this Motion to Remand, that the overcharge is $20.00 to
$30.00.
8

The prayer for relief also asks for other amounts including attorneys’ fees and costs. See
Brown v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc., 2007 WL 642011, at *3 (N.D. Ohio 2007) (noting punitive damages,
injunction-related costs, and legal fees are considered in determining amount in controversy in the
Sixth Circuit).
-8-

the amount in controversy requirement has been met, the Court must first determine
whether Hubbard II’s amount in controversy should be aggregated with the amount
in controversy in Nuckles. The defendant argues that it should; the plaintiff, of course,
argues to the contrary.
As stated above, both Complaints disclaim damages over $4,999,999.00.
More specifically, the plaintiff argues that adding $4,999,999.00 from Hubbard II to
the $4,999,999.00 in Nuckles more than meets the $5 million threshold. The plaintiff
argues that because Nuckles was voluntarily dismissed, the issue is moot.
The plaintiffs in Nuckles voluntarily dismissed that case on January 29,
2010. However, this fact does not make the issue moot because jurisdiction is
determined at the time of removal, and subsequent events, “whether beyond the
plaintiff’s control or the result of his volition, do not oust the district court’s
jurisdiction once it has attached.” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303
U.S. 283, 293 (1938); Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868, 872 (6th Cir.
2000). Nuckles and Hubbard II were removed on the same day, October 21, 2009.
Thus, the Nuckles case was pending at the time of removal. Nuckles was not
dismissed until the issue of aggregation was raised in the defendant’s response.
Accordingly, its dismissal may not act as grounds to oust this Court of jurisdiction.
Nonetheless, that does not end the inquiry.
-9-

To decide the issue, the Court must reconcile two Sixth Circuit cases,
Smith v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 505 F.3d 401 (6th
Cir. 2007), and Freeman v. Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc., 551 F.3d 405 (6th Cir.
2009). In both cases, the Sixth Circuit reviewed this Court’s decisions on motions to
remand in the CAFA context.
In Smith, the issue before the Sixth Circuit was whether the “[d]efendant
ha[d] failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the district court
had original jurisdiction over this putative class action by virtue of an adequate
amount in controversy.” 505 F.3d at 403. The plaintiff had limited the amount in
controversy for the entire class to $4,999,999.00. Id. The defendant conceded in the
case that the amount of compensatory damages sought by the plaintiff would yield less
than $5,000,000.00. Id. at 407. However, it argued that an award of punitive damages
could result in an award in excess of the jurisdictional threshold. Id. at 408. The
Sixth Circuit recognized that the plaintiff is the “‘master of [his] complaint’ and can
plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.”

Id. at 407 (citing Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank

National Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007)). The court stated, “A disclaimer
in a complaint regarding the amount of recoverable damages does not preclude a
defendant from removing the matter to federal court upon a demonstration that
damages are ‘more likely than not’ to ‘meet the amount in controversy requirement,’
-10-

but it can be sufficient absent adequate proof from defendant that potential damages
actually exceed the jurisdictional threshold.” Id. (citing Williamson v. Aetna Life Ins.
Co., 481 F.3d 369, 375 (6th Cir. 2007)). The Court also stated that the jurisdictional
analysis also takes into account the possible recovery of punitive damages. Id. at 408.
The plaintiff did not seek punitive damages in the Complaint but pled only claims for
breach of contract. Id. Tennessee law applied to the case, and pursuant to that state’s
law, punitive damages are not recoverable in a breach of contract action. Id.
Therefore, the Sixth Circuit decided that the amount in controversy was not met, and
it upheld this Court’s decision that the defendant had failed to carry its burden that the
amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000.00. Id.
The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Freeman, is less clear, and the procedural
history of the case is more complicated. In that case, plaintiff sued in state court and
alleged nuisance pursuant to North Carolina law, which applied to the case. Id. at 406.
The plaintiff limited the damages of the putative class to $4,900,000.00. Id. The
time-frame encompassed in the Complaint was from August 17, 2005, until the date
of trial. Id. The defendant removed the case, and this Court remanded because the
defendant had not shown that it was more likely than not that plaintiff’s claims met
the amount in controversy requirements. Id. at 407. On remand, the plaintiff
amended the Complaint and divided the suit into five separate suits, encompassing
-11-

different time frames. Id. Each suit covered successive six-month time frames.9 Id.
The defendant then removed all suits, and they were consolidated in this Court. Id.
The plaintiff filed a motion to remand, and this Court granted the motion. Id. A split
panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed. Id. at 410.
The court stated that the jurisdictional threshold “appears to be met”
because the five suits must be aggregated. Id. at 407. The court pointed out that the
plaintiff admitted at oral argument that avoiding CAFA was the only reason for
structuring the suits as he did.10 Id. The court stated that CAFA was designed to
prevent such artificial structuring to avoid federal jurisdiction. Id. Furthermore, the
court reasoned:
Because plaintiffs' suits in the aggregate seek up to
$24.5 million, we need not decide the proper standard of
proof under CAFA when a plaintiff limits his damages to
less than the jurisdictional amount and there is a factual
dispute as to the amount of damages for purposes of
removal. Instead, this case must be treated as if plaintiffs
filed a claim worth up to $24.5 million in state court. In “a
suit instituted in a state court and thence removed,”
plaintiffs' claim of damages exceeding the federal amount
in controversy is presumed correct unless shown to a legal
certainty that the amount is actually less than the federal
standard. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303
U.S. 283, 290-92, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938);
9

According to North Carolina law, a new cause of action arises each time pollutants are
discharged into the river.
10

This concession was not made to this Court.
-12-

Gafford v. General Electric Co., 997 F.2d 150, 157 (6th
Cir. 1993). “Thus, once the defendant has pointed to an
adequate jurisdictional amount, the situation becomes
analogous to the ‘typical’ circumstances in which the St.
Paul Mercury ‘legal certainty’ test is applicable . . . .” De
Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1412 (5th Cir. 1995).
Therefore, on remand, if the district court determines to a
legal certainty that plaintiffs' claim, as aggregated, does not
meet the $5 million amount in controversy requirement, the
cases should be remanded.
Our holding is limited to the situation where there is
no colorable basis for dividing up the sought-for
retrospective relief into separate time periods, other than to
frustrate CAFA. We recognize that plaintiffs can avoid
removal under CAFA by limiting the damages they seek to
amounts less than the CAFA thresholds. Generally, if a
plaintiff “does not desire to try his case in the federal court
he may resort to the expedient of suing for less than the
jurisdictional amount, and though he would be justly
entitled to more, the defendant cannot remove.” St. Paul
Mercury, 303 U.S. at 294, 58 S.Ct. 586. But where
recovery is expanded, rather than limited, by virtue of
splintering of lawsuits for no colorable reason, the total of
such identical splintered lawsuits may be aggregated.
Id. at 409.
This Court notes that the Freeman Court treated the amount in
controversy as one for a specific amount and not an indeterminate amount although
the Complaints never asked for a specific amount. Thus, it multiplied the top amount
disclaimed by the five suits to reach an aggregate amount in controversy of $24.5
million. The Complaints in the Hubbard II and Nuckles use similar language, and
they state that the actual amount of damages will be proved at trial. Nonetheless, this
-13-

Court will follow what the Sixth Circuit did in Freeman and will treat it as if the
plaintiff specifically sought $4,999,999.00 in each case.
This distinction may or may not be of importance. However, this Court
wanted to note how the Freeman Court treated these amounts, considering its mention
of the standards of proof and the “typical” circumstances surrounding St. Paul
Mercury’s “legal certainty” test. In such discussion, the Freeman Court cited Gafford
v. General Electric Co., 997 F.2d 150, 157 (6th Cir. 1993), overruled on other
grounds, Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1191-94 (2010), and De Aguilar v.
Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1412 (5th Cir. 1995). In Gafford, the court discussed the
different standards applied depending on the amount in controversy specified or
unspecified in a complaint. For example, the legal certainty test is applied where the
complaint lists an amount above the jurisdictional threshold. Gafford, 997 F.2d at
157. In addition, that case decided that the preponderance standard applies when the
complaint sets forth an unspecified amount. Id. at 158. This case has not been
overturned on these grounds. Furthermore, in De Aguilar the court stated that “the
legal certainty test . . . contemplate[s] the ‘typical’ diversity situation.” 47 F.3d at
1409. The court further explained, “In a typical diversity situation, the plaintiff files
a suit in federal court alleging damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount.” Id. at
n. 6. Thus, even though the Freeman complaints did not specify a specific amount,
-14-

the Freeman court chose the top of the disclaimer, added them together, and in
essence stated that this amount was a specified amount. On remand, this Court was
to apply the legal certainty test (analogous to a “typical” jurisdictional situation) to
determine whether this $24.5 million dollar amount exceeded the $5 million threshold.

Accordingly, as stated above, this Court will treat the $4,999,999.00
disclaimer amount in Hubbard II and Nuckles as specific amounts. Thus, the question
still remains whether these two cases should be aggregated. If they should, then this
Court will apply the legal certainty test. If they should not, however, this Court will
apply the preponderance test to the amount “specified” in the Hubbard II Complaint.
This Court stated at the oral argument that this is the test that it would apply, for the
Sixth Circuit has not stated with certainty that this Court should apply any other test.
The Sixth Circuit intentionally did not decide this issue in Freeman, for it stated,
“Because plaintiffs’ suits in the aggregate seek up to $24.5 million, we need not
decide the proper standard of proof under CAFA when a plaintiff limits his damages
to less than the jurisdictional amount and there is a factual dispute as to the amount
of damages for purposes of removal.” 551 F.3d at 409. Moreover, even though there
was not a factual dispute over the amount of compensatory damages in Smith, the
Sixth Circuit did not find that this Court’s decision that the defendant did not meet its
-15-

burden by a preponderance as reversible error. Furthermore, Smith states, “A
disclaimer in a complaint regarding the amount of recoverable damages does not
preclude a defendant from removing the matter to federal court upon a demonstration
that damages are ‘more likely than not’ to ‘meet the amount in controversy
requirement,’ but it can be sufficient absent adequate proof from defendant that
potential damages actually exceed the jurisdictional threshold.” Smith, 505 F.3d at
407 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Williamson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 481 F.3d 369, 375 (6th
Cir. 2007)). In addition, Gafford has not been overturned, and that case specifically
adopted the preponderance test when a complaint does not specify an amount of
damages.
Before applying either test to determine whether the amount in
controversy requirement has been met in the CAFA context, this Court must first
decide whether the cases should be aggregated. It seems that Freeman established this
new requirement by creating the “colorable basis test.” However, the court did not
clearly define the test or give instructions on its application. It merely stated that
“[b]ecause no colorable basis for dividing the claim has been identified by the
plaintiffs other than to avoid the clear purpose of CAFA, remand was not proper.”
5511 F.3d at 406. It also did not find the substance of the claim’s underlying law to
be an adequate reason for “artificially” dividing up the suits by time periods. Id. at
-16-

408. Again, North Carolina law allows a new cause of action for every trespass
injury. Perhaps the most telling reason for this decision is that the plaintiff admitted
that avoiding CAFA was the only reason for this structuring. Id. at 407. This point
is emphasized by the limited nature of the holding. The court stated, “Our holding is
limited to the situation where there is no colorable basis for dividing up the sought-for
retrospective relief into separate time periods, other than to frustrate CAFA. . . .
[W]here recovery is expanded, rather than limited, by virtue of splintering of lawsuits
for no colorable reason, the total of such identical splintered lawsuits may be
aggregated” Id. at 409 (emphasis added). Thus, despite the plaintiff being the master
of his complaint, and despite a legitimate reason for “structuring” the lawsuits on
remand the way plaintiff’s counsel did, i.e. substantive law allowing such, the court
focused instead on the breaking up of time periods in cases of identical natures to
avoid CAFA.
It seems that the only way to reconcile Smith and Freeman is that the
plaintiff, in essence, is not the so-called master of his complaint if he specifically
drafts it to avoid CAFA by “splintering” identical lawsuits by time. Thus, drafting a
complaint this way divests him of the benefit of choosing his forum by disclaiming
damages over the jurisdictional threshold. However, he is the master of his complaint
and can specifically plead to avoid federal jurisdiction by using disclaimers to limit
-17-

the amount in controversy any other time.
In Hubbard II and Nuckles, plaintiffs’ counsel has perhaps learned from
his mistake in Freeman and has not admitted that the only reason for structuring the
suits as he did was to avoid federal jurisdiction. Although he did break the suits up
according to time, i.e. current student-athletes and former student-athletes, he also
sued different defendants. Nevertheless, he alleges in both suits that the same entities
are members of essentially the same conspiracy. He also alleges all of the same
counts. Plaintiff briefly addressed the aggregation issue in his response, and he
merely argues that the plaintiffs and defendants are different and that Freeman is
distinguishable. However, he did not attempt to actually distinguish Freeman. At the
hearing, the plaintiff argued that the case begins and ends with Smith. He also argued
that Hubbard II and Nuckles were divided in such a way to avoid confusion and
because the NCAA does not have a defense as to former players.11 Nonetheless, the
defendant points out that plaintiff’s counsel is co-counsel in a similar case in
California in which a nationwide class has been certified for necessarily the same
conspiracy pursuant to California law. Plaintiff’s counsel argued in that case that the
cases of the current athletes and the former athletes were sufficiently similar for

11

This Court is also concerned about the fluid movement of the plaintiffs from one class to
another once one graduates. As stated earlier, that may be the exact situation with Mr. Hubbard.
-18-

consolidation. See Defendant’s Opposition to Remand Motions, pg. 18 n. 46.
For the reasons just stated, this Court FINDS that Hubbard II and
Nuckles are identical suits splintered by time for no other legitimate purpose other
than to avoid federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the amounts in controversy are
aggregated to total nearly $10,000,000.00. As such, this Court applies the legal
certainty test, and further FINDS that the test has been met. Thus, the motion to
remand in Hubbard II is DENIED. Considering this ruling, the Court need not reach
the issue without aggregation.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motions to Remand, [Doc. 14 in 2:09CV-233 and Doc. 17 in 2:09-CV-234], are DENIED. Because they are denied, the
plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is also DENIED. Defendant’s motions to strike
the declaration of Dr. Fort, [Doc.19 in No. 2:09-CV-233 and Doc. 25 in No. 2:09-CV234], are DENIED.
ENTER:
s/J. RONNIE GREER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-19-