2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92157
D. Md.2014Background
- Green, former NFL player, sues Pro Football, Inc. and Royal over a Washington team bounty program allegedly rewarding injuring opponents.
- In 2004 Green was injured by Royal during a Redskins vs. Giants game in Maryland; Green alleges the hit was intentional and tied to a bounty system.
- Green only learned of a bounty program in 2012 via press reports and NFL findings, triggering his state-law claims.
- Defendants removed to federal court and moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing statute of limitations and LMRA §301 preemption.
- Court bifurcates claims: battery/civil conspiracy may survive; negligence-based claims are time-barred and dismissed.
- Court grants leave to amend to add a civil conspiracy count; finds non-preempted battery theory may proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does statute of limitations bar the bounty-related claims? | Green argues discovery tolling and fraudulent concealment toll the limit. | Defendants assert all claims time-barred, with discovery not applicable to the 2004 injury. | Statute of limitations tolling potentially applies; battery/conspiracy claims survive. |
| Are Green's claims preempted by the LMRA § 301 and the CBA? | Claims arise from state law torts, not a labor dispute; not preempted. | All claims derive from CBA interpretations and are preempted. | Battery and civil conspiracy claims are not preempted; negligence claims are precluded. |
| Should Green's negligence-based claims be dismissed as time-barred? | Discovery/fraud tolling may apply to toll the period for negligence. | Negligence claims are time-barred absent tolling. | Negligence, gross negligence, and malice claims dismissed; battery/conspiracy remain. |
| May Green amend to include a civil conspiracy claim? | Amendment necessary to reflect conspiracy between Pro Football and Royal. | Preemption and limitations issues would apply; conspiracy should be dismissed if time-barred. | Amendment granted; conspiracy claim allowed to proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Douglas, 799 A.2d 448 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002) (three-year battery limitations in Maryland)
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Washington, 689 A.2d 634 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997) (discovery rule and duty to investigate limitations context)
- Lumsden v. Design Tech Builders, Inc., 749 A.2d 796 (Md. 2000) (discovery rule standard for tolling)
- Poole v. Coakley & Williams Const. Inc., 31 A.3d 212 (Md. 2011) (discovery rule tolling; fraudulent concealment doctrine)
- Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1985) (§ 301 preemption framework; when not to preempt)
- Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1994) (narrow preemption scope under LMRA)
- Smith v. Houston Oilers, Inc., 87 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 1996) (intentional torts in CBA context not always preempted)
- Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 601 F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1979) (tort claims for intentional injuries in sports not necessarily preempted)