In re National Football League Players' Concussion Injury Litigation
961 F. Supp. 2d 708
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- MDL consolidates 4,500+ former players’ head-injury claims against NFL Parties.
- Proposed Settlement provides $760 million over 20 years for benefits, education, and administration.
- Settlement includes a $675M Monetary Award Fund, $75M Baseline Assessment Program, and $10M Education Fund.
- Subclasses define eligibility: Subclass 1 (no prior Qualifying Diagnosis) and Subclass 2 (with prior diagnosis).
- A Special Master will oversee BAP and Claims Administrators; half of Special Master’s pay paid by NFL Parties; other funds pay administrators and costs.
- Court denies preliminary approval without prejudice due to record deficiencies and funding concerns; directs sharing of documentation through Special Master.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for preliminary approval | Plaintiffs argue settlement may be fair but record is insufficient. | NFL Parties did not oppose; settlement negotiated at arm’s length. | Preliminary approval denied without prejudice; record deemed insufficient. |
| Whether the Monetary Award Fund has sufficient funding to pay all potential claimants | Economists’ analyses show adequate funding for anticipated claims. | Record lacks detailed funding analyses; fund may be insufficient. | Court expresses concern; funding sufficiency not established. |
| Whether class certification should be preliminarily conditioned for notice | Class should be preliminarily certified for notice to absentees. | Record incomplete; no final determination on certification. | Not addressed for conditional certification at this stage; preliminary approval denied. |
| Whether the release provisions, including NCAA releases, are appropriate | Releases are standard for settlement and protect class interest. | Releases, including third-party entities, raise concerns. | Court raises concerns; not resolved at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2000) (settlement approval standards; pretrial control by transferee court)
- U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (Supreme Ct. 1980) (class action fairness and absence of absentees protection)
- General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Prod. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995) (fiduciary duty to protect absentees; range of possible approval)
- Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975) (district court guardianship of class members’ rights; final approval factors)
- In re Warner Communications Sec. Litig., 798 F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1986) (court’s duty to protect class members’ interests in settlements)
- In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 516 (3d Cir. 2004) (scrutiny level at preliminary approval; need for thorough record)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (S. Ct. 1997) (framework for class action settlements and certification)