3:16-cv-01030
N.D. Cal.May 15, 2017Background
- Putative class action by twelve retired NFL players (and one estate) against all 32 NFL clubs alleging intentional misrepresentation and concealment about medication use and player safety; prior RICO and conspiracy claims were dismissed without leave to amend.
- Plaintiffs filed a lengthy second amended complaint focused on misrepresentation and concealment; defendants moved to dismiss most claims and for summary judgment on time-bar grounds.
- Court limited consideration to allegations tied to named plaintiffs and individual clubs (not broad, class-wide conspiracy or extraneous allegations). Many allegations in the complaint were ruled inapposite or barred by prior orders.
- Three liability theories considered: concealment about medications, concealment of illegality, and affirmative misrepresentations that clubs prioritized player health.
- Court found most concealment claims (medication or illegality) inadequately pleaded as to reliance and causation; only a subset of affirmative misrepresentation claims against specific clubs survived dismissal.
- On summary judgment, most surviving claims were time-barred under Maryland’s 3-year statute with the discovery rule; summary judgment granted for all but three claims (Carreker/Packers, Carreker/Broncos, Walker/Chargers).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 9(b) pleading satisfied for fraud/ concealment claims | Plaintiffs alleged concealment and misrepresentation generally and contend concealment claims need not meet full 9(b) particularity | Clubs argued fraud-based claims must plead who, what, when, where, how with particularity | Court: Rule 9(b) applies; concealment must be particularized (though date may be a period), many allegations failed 9(b) |
| Causation/reliance for medication-related concealment | Plaintiffs claimed medication concealment caused later injuries (internal organs, musculoskeletal) and relied on club nondisclosure | Clubs argued plaintiffs failed to plead that named plaintiffs relied or that medications caused their injuries; allegations speculative | Court: Medication-concealment claims dismissed for lack of pleaded reliance/causation (except Carreker on other theory) |
| Concealment of illegality (failure to disclose that conduct violated laws) | Plaintiffs alleged clubs hid that dispensing violated CSA/FDCA and relied on that concealment | Clubs argued disclosure of legal violations wouldn’t have changed plaintiff conduct and plaintiffs did not plead reliance | Court: Claims based on concealment of illegality dismissed for failure to plead reliance and implausible damages theory |
| Statute of limitations (discovery rule, Maryland law) | Plaintiffs argued latent injuries from excessive medication were not discoverable until shortly before suit | Clubs argued plaintiffs knew facts that would trigger investigation long before May 2012; many injuries predated limitations period and were subject of workers’ comp claims | Court: Maryland discovery rule starts limitations earlier; nearly all surviving claims time-barred except Carreker/Packers, Carreker/Broncos, Walker/Chargers |
Key Cases Cited
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (Rule 9(b) particularity for fraud and nondisclosure claims)
- Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal.4th 979 (Cal. 2004) (elements of fraud under California law)
- Lloyd v. General Motors Corp., 916 A.2d 257 (Md. 2007) (elements of concealment under Maryland law)
- Brass Metal Prods., Inc. v. E-J Enters., Inc., 984 A.2d 361 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2009) (elements of intentional misrepresentation under Maryland law)
- Lumsden v. Design Tech Builders, Inc., 749 A.2d 796 (Md. 2000) (Maryland discovery rule for statute of limitations)
- Moreland v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 831 A.2d 1091 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2003) (discovery rule applies to discovery of facts, not discovery of legal significance)
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Washington, 689 A.2d 634 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997) (cause of action accrues when tortious act occurs regardless of victim’s legal understanding)