Steve Simms v. Jerral Jones
836 F.3d 516
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs bought Super Bowl XLV tickets at Cowboys Stadium (AT&T Stadium); temporary seating was contracted and many temporary seats were incomplete or had sightline problems, leaving ~400 displaced, ~850 relocated, and ~2,000 delayed.
- The NFL offered compensation and most ticketholders settled; Appellants pursued litigation and sought certification of three putative classes: Displaced, Relocated/Delayed, and Obstructed-View (tickets not marked restricted).
- Appellants pleaded breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and DTPA claims; the Cowboys franchise was named as a defendant.
- The district court dismissed (under Rule 12(b)(6)) many tort claims as barred by Texas’s economic-loss rule, dismissed the Cowboys (no contract), denied class certification, and granted summary judgment on obstructed-view claims regarding the video board.
- Seven individual plaintiffs tried breach claims and prevailed at trial (damages awarded); fraud claims largely failed. Appellants appealed the dismissals, summary judgment, denial of class certification, and some trial rulings. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability of Cowboys (breach/tort) | Ticket invoices and sale activity plausibly infer Cowboys were party to ticket contracts or jointly liable | Cowboys were third-party vendor; tickets unambiguously identify NFL as admitting authority; no contract with Cowboys | Affirmed dismissal: no plausible contract or duty; Cowboys not liable |
| Fraudulent inducement by NFL (displaced/relocated seats) | NFL recklessly or knowingly sold tickets without intent/ability to provide temporary seats; circumstantial statements show intent | No plausible inference NFL intended not to perform; seats were being installed up to game day and NFL had no incentive to deceive | Affirmed dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b): fraudulent inducement implausible / not pleaded with particularity |
| Obstructed-view claims re: video board (contract & fraud) | Ticket promise “a spectator seat for the game” should be read to include video board view; nondisclosure of obstructions supports fraud | Ticket term unambiguous; no contractual duty to provide video board view; no duty to disclose; reliance not shown classwide | Affirmed summary judgment: contract unambiguous (seat for game = view of field), fraud/omission fails as matter of law |
| Class certification (Displaced; Relocated; Obstructed-View) | Common issues (liability, materiality) predominate; numerosity met; reliance can be presumed for omissions | Individualized issues of membership, extent/materiality of obstruction, and individualized damages predominate; numerosity and manageability lacking | Affirmed denial of class certification: failed numerosity or predominance and superiority analyses |
Key Cases Cited
- Toy v. Holder, 714 F.3d 881 (5th Cir. 2013) (12(b)(6) standard described)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading requirements and plausibility)
- DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp., 793 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. 1990) (elements of common-law fraud)
- Spoljaric v. Percival Tours, Inc., 708 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. 1986) (fraudulent promise of future performance requires intent not to perform)
- Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (fraudulent inducement can sound in tort separate from contract when proven)
- Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. 1991) (economic-loss/independent injury rule)
- Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (class certification commonality principles)
- Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (predominance and superiority in class actions)
- Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972) (limited presumption of reliance for omission claims in securities context)