231 F. Supp. 3d 342
N.D. Cal.2017Background
- Thirteen former NFL players (plaintiffs) sued all 32 NFL clubs alleging a long-running "return-to-play" practice in which clubs pressured injured players to keep playing and supplied or administered medications that masked injuries. Plaintiffs assert RICO, intentional misrepresentation, concealment, and conspiracy claims (amended complaint).
- Plaintiffs allege club-level representations that medical staffs prioritized player health, but claim trainers/doctors downplayed injuries, failed to disclose drug identities/risks, and provided medications without appropriate prescriptions or physician oversight. Specific player-level examples are pleaded for several clubs.
- Plaintiffs originally sued in Maryland in 2015; the case was transferred to this district and plaintiffs were allowed to amend to add RICO and concealment claims. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
- Court evaluated timeliness of the RICO claim under the four-year statute and the "injury discovery" rule, and applied Rule 9(b) particularity standards to the fraud-based state law claims.
- The court dismissed the RICO claim as time-barred and dismissed the conspiracy claim for failure to plead an agreement; it sustained (denied dismissal of) intentional misrepresentation and concealment claims only as to eight clubs (Lions, Raiders, Broncos, Packers, Seahawks, Dolphins, Chargers, Vikings) based on specific factual allegations, and dismissed those claims as to the remaining clubs. Plaintiffs were given one final opportunity to amend limited claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of RICO claim | Injuries and some harms developed recently (latent harms); limitations tolled by fraudulent concealment | RICO claims are governed by a 4-year statute; plaintiffs knew or should have known of business/property injuries when careers ended; claims are time‑barred | RICO claim dismissed as untimely; tolling/fraudulent concealment not pleaded sufficiently; leave to amend RICO denied as futile |
| RICO standing/injury type | Lost career length and diminished post‑NFL earning prospects are RICO injuries to business or property | Many harms are personal (health) injuries not recoverable under RICO; economic harms flowing from personal injuries do not qualify | Court assumed arguendo the injury type but held claims time‑barred; also noted personal injuries are not RICO injuries under controlling precedent |
| Particularity of fraud-based state claims (intentional misrepresentation/concealment) | Alleged pervasive misrepresentations about prioritizing player health and specific instances where clubs concealed risks and provided medications | Many allegations are generalized; Rule 9(b) requires "who, what, when, where, how" as to each defendant | Fraud‑based claims pleaded with sufficient particularity as to eight clubs with specific player-level facts; dismissed as to other clubs for lack of particularized allegations; leave to amend granted limitedly |
| Conspiracy (agreement) | Alleged NFL-wide "return-to-play practice/policy" and coordination via NFL institutions supports conspiracy inference | Allegations describe a pervasive culture and parallel conduct, not an agreement; no factual allegations of inter-club meeting/understanding to subordinate health | Conspiracy claim dismissed: plaintiffs failed to allege non‑conclusory facts showing an agreement among clubs; culture/parallel conduct insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of civil RICO claims)
- Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley‑Duff & Assocs., Inc., 483 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1987) (four‑year limitations period for civil RICO)
- Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (U.S. 2000) (RICO limitations period begins on discovery of injury, not discovery of other claim elements)
- Pincay v. Andrews, 238 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2001) (injury discovery rule; constructive notice starts limitations; fraudulent concealment standards)
- Oscar v. Univ. Students Co‑op. Ass'n, 965 F.2d 783 (9th Cir. 1992) (personal injuries are not cognizable as RICO injuries to business or property)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1971) (accrual rules for speculative future damages in treble‑damage actions)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (Rule 9(b) requires pleading the who, what, when, where, and how of alleged fraud)
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1979) (distinction between discovery of injury and discovery of legal right)
- Volk v. D.A. Davidson & Co., 816 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1987) (fraudulent concealment tolling; due diligence requirement)
- Berg v. First State Ins. Co., 915 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1990) (economic losses deriving from personal injuries do not support RICO recovery)
- In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig., 846 F.3d 313 (9th Cir. 2017) (courts may consider successive motions to dismiss in interests of judicial economy)