780 F.Supp.3d 1212
N.D. Fla.2025Background
- Jaden Rashada, an elite high school football quarterback, sued Hugh Hathcock, William Napier, Marcus Castro-Walker, and Velocity Automotive Solutions for allegedly orchestrating a fraudulent NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) scheme to induce him to play football at the University of Florida (UF), thereby harming rival schools.
- In 2022-23, NCAA and Florida law allowed limited NIL compensation but prohibited direct inducements for athletic commitments; complex collective and booster networks evolved to facilitate athlete deals.
- Rashada alleges UF representatives and affiliated boosters repeatedly promised him lucrative NIL deals (eventually $13.85 million) to flip his commitment from the University of Miami to UF, but the promised payments were never made and the deal was ultimately canceled after he signed with UF.
- Rashada withdrew his commitment after nonpayment and foregone other NIL opportunities, and subsequently sued for fraud, conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference, aiding and abetting, and vicarious liability.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to state claims and that some claims (notably tortious interference) are not recognized under Florida law; some raised sovereign immunity defenses.
- The court granted the motions in part but let most claims proceed to discovery, dismissing only claims for independent conspiracy, tortious interference, and aiding/abetting tortious interference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraudulent misrepresentation and inducement | Defendants falsely promised NIL $ to induce UF commitment | No plausible fraud; agency not pled; alleged promises were future acts | Sufficiently pled to proceed |
| Aiding and abetting fraud; negligent misrep. | Defendants knowingly assisted each other's fraudulent acts | No actual knowledge; no actionable underlying conduct | Sufficiently pled to proceed |
| Agency relationships between defendants | Relationships detailed are plausible on facts, sufficient at this stage | Agency not well pled; requires higher pleading standard | Agency pleadings sufficient at motion to dismiss stage |
| Civil conspiracy (to commit fraud vs. independent) | Defendants conspired to defraud Rashada | No actionable underlying tort; no power of peculiar coercion | Conspiracy to commit fraud survives; standalone conspiracy dismissed |
| Tortious interference with Miami NIL deal | Inducement supports claim even if Rashada withdrew himself | Claim not recognized where plaintiff is party who withdraws | Dismissed under Florida law |
| Vicarious liability for acts of agents | Velocity is liable for Hathcock’s conduct in NIL negotiations | Not all underlying claims are actionable | Allowed as to surviving torts; dismissed for others |
| Sovereign immunity for public university agents | Not established on face of complaint; factual issue | Napier/Castro-Walker argue they are immune for official acts | Not decided at this stage; motion denied on this ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021) (NCAA's amateurism rules and antitrust law)
- Butler v. Yusem, 44 So.3d 102 (Fla. 2010) (fraud elements under Florida law)
- Besett v. Basnett, 389 So.2d 995 (Fla. 1980) (fraud does not require justifiable reliance under FL law)
- United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) (civil conspiracy elements in Florida)
- Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 338 So.3d 831 (Fla. 2022) (reliance in fraud)
- Joiner v. McCullers, 28 So.2d 823 (Fla. 1947) (proof of knowledge in fraud)
- Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59 (1995) (standard for justifiable reliance in fraud)