252 F. Supp. 3d 855
N.D. Cal.2017Background
- Twelve retired NFL players and one estate sue the 32 NFL clubs, alleging intentional misrepresentation and concealment about medications given during their careers; prior RICO and conspiracy claims were dismissed without leave to amend.
- Plaintiffs filed a voluminous second amended complaint that narrows claims to misrepresentation and concealment but contains extensive, often non-particularized allegations about the NFL generally and putative class members.
- The clubs moved to dismiss most claims and for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds; substantial discovery had already occurred.
- Court applies Rule 9(b) (fraud must be pled with particularity) and Maryland or California substantive law (elements treated as the same here) and requires pleading of reliance and causation for both misrepresentation and nondisclosure theories.
- The court dismissed concealment-based claims about medication side effects and illegal conduct for failure to plead reliance and causation (except limited support for Alphonso Carreker as to causation but not reliance).
- The court sustained a limited set of intentional-misrepresentation claims (specific plaintiff-club pairings) and granted summary judgment on time-barred surviving claims except for Carreker v. Packers, Carreker v. Broncos, and Walker v. Chargers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Rule 9(b) to concealment claims | 9(b) should not fully apply to omission claims | Rule 9(b) applies; omissions must still be pled with particularity (may allow time ranges) | Rule 9(b) applies to both misrepresentation and concealment; particularity required |
| Whether concealment of medication (side effects) was pled with reliance and causation | Plaintiffs allege clubs concealed medication risks causing later organ and other injuries | Clubs argue named plaintiffs did not allege they relied or that medication caused their asserted injuries; many injuries predate limitations period | Claims based on concealment re medication dismissed for failure to plead reliance/causation (except Carreker on causation only) |
| Whether concealment of illegality was pled with reliance/damages | Plaintiffs allege clubs illegally dispensed drugs and concealed that illegality | Clubs argue plaintiffs did not plead reliance or that nondisclosure of legal status caused damages | Claims based on concealment of illegality dismissed for failure to plead reliance and damages |
| Validity and scope of intentional misrepresentation claims | Plaintiffs invoke prior order's theory that clubs represented prioritizing health and players relied to their detriment | Clubs seek dismissal/summary judgment for lack of particularity and for statute of limitations | Court sustained intentional-misrepresentation claims as to specific plaintiff-club pairings (twelve pairings listed) and dismissed others; summary judgment granted on most surviving claims as 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) requires fraud pleadings to state the who, what, when, where, and how)
- Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal.4th 979 (Cal. 2004) (elements of fraud under California law require justifiable reliance and causation)
- Lloyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 397 Md. 108 (Md. 2007) (elements of concealment under Maryland law)
- Brass Metal Prods., Inc. v. E-J Enters., Inc., 189 Md. App. 310 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2009) (elements of intentional misrepresentation under Maryland law)
- Lumsden v. Design Tech Builders, Inc., 358 Md. 435 (Md. 2000) (Maryland discovery rule for statute of limitations)
- Moreland v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 152 Md. App. 288 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2003) (discovery rule focuses on discovery of facts, not legal significance)
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Wash., 114 Md. App. 169 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997) (knowledge of facts, not legal characterization, starts limitations period)