Mehr v. Féderation Internationale de Football Ass'n
115 F. Supp. 3d 1035
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Seven named plaintiffs (including minors) filed a proposed nationwide class action alleging defendants (FIFA, U.S. Soccer, USYSA, CYSA, U.S. Club Soccer, AYSO) failed to adopt/enforce concussion-management practices and youth-heading/substitution rules, seeking injunctive relief and a medical-monitoring program.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants had knowledge of international "consensus" concussion protocols but failed to implement them; some plaintiffs played for clubs affiliated with the named organizations.
- FIFA is a Swiss association with its principal place of business in Zurich; it has limited direct activities in California and does not organize local U.S. leagues; IFAB (not a party) controls the Laws of the Game.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (FIFA), lack of Article III standing, failure to state claims (negligence, voluntary undertaking, and standalone medical-monitoring), and failure to join necessary party (IFAB).
- The district court dismissed FIFA for lack of personal jurisdiction with prejudice; dismissed all defendants' standing and Rule 12(b)(6) challenges largely with leave to amend except (a) FIFA personal-jurisdiction dismissal was with prejudice and (b) the standalone medical-monitoring claim was dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over FIFA | FIFA exerts worldwide influence and has contacts with California (medical center accreditation, agents, sponsorships) so specific jurisdiction exists | FIFA is Swiss, not "at home" in CA; alleged CA contacts are commercial and unrelated to claims; no "but-for" link between CA contacts and alleged injuries | Court: No personal jurisdiction; FIFA dismissed with prejudice (no general or specific jurisdiction) |
| Article III standing for injunctive relief | Plaintiffs face increased future risk from repeated head impacts and therefore seek injunctive relief to require protocols/rule changes | Plaintiffs lack concrete, particularized, imminent injury; causation to specific defendants is weak; redress limited because IFAB controls Laws of the Game | Court: Plaintiffs failed to plead injury, causation, redressability; dismissal for lack of standing granted with leave to amend except for plaintiffs out of youth range |
| Viability of negligence/voluntary-undertaking claims | Defendants owed duties to adopt/enforce concussion best practices and failed to do so, causing risk of harm | Risks alleged are inherent to sport; plaintiffs plead no legally cognizable duty, no breach tied to specific plaintiff, and no proximate causation | Court: Negligence and voluntary-undertaking claims dismissed with leave to amend to plead duty, breach, and causation for each plaintiff/defendant |
| Standalone medical-monitoring claim | Plaintiffs seek creation of a monitoring fund and notification program for exposed class members | California (and some jurisdictions) do not recognize an independent medical-monitoring tort; such relief is a remedy contingent on traditional tort liability | Court: Standalone medical-monitoring claim dismissed with prejudice (not a recognized independent cause under California law) |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (general-jurisdiction standard: forum contacts must make a corporation essentially at home)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts due process framework)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S. 2014) (specific-jurisdiction inquiry focuses on defendant’s contacts with the forum state itself)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (foreseeability of causing injury in forum insufficient without purposeful availment)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (Article III standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury; causation and redressability)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard for factual allegations)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (complaint must contain factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296 (Cal. 1992) (no duty to prevent risks inherent in sport; duty varies by participant role)