Turner v. National Football League, 301 F.R.D. 191

Background

Over 5,000 former NFL players brought consolidated MDL claims alleging the NFL breached duties and concealed risks from concussion and sub-concussive head injuries; more than 20,000 persons fall within the proposed nationwide Settlement Class.
Plaintiffs and the NFL negotiated a revised settlement after the court declined preliminary approval of an earlier $675 million capped fund; the revised deal “uncaps” the Monetary Award Fund so the NFL must pay all valid claims for 65 years.
Settlement components: (1) $75 million Baseline Assessment Program (BAP) for neuropsychological/neurological baseline testing and treatment; (2) a 65‑year Monetary Award Fund with specified awards for Qualifying Diagnoses (ALS, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Level 1.5/2 impairments, Death with CTE) and indexing/step‑up features; (3) $10 million Education Fund.
Plaintiffs need not prove causation from NFL play to receive awards; awards are subject to age, seasons played, offsets, and reductions for certain prior injuries; NFL pays notice/admin costs and separately agreed not to oppose attorneys’ fee request up to $112.5 million.
Court preliminarily approved the Settlement, conditionally certified the Settlement Class and two subclasses, approved the notice plan, scheduled a fairness hearing, and issued a broad stay and injunction to bar parallel suits against Released Parties (excluding Riddell defendants).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the proposed settlement should receive preliminary approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate	Settlement provides significant, guaranteed long‑term relief (uncapped 65‑year payment obligation), improved anti‑fraud measures, BAP and education—so it falls within range of possible approval	NFL emphasized defenses (preemption, statutes of limitations, assumption of risk) but agreed to settlement terms	Court preliminarily approved: no obvious deficiencies, falls within range of possible approval.
Whether negotiations were arm’s‑length and conducted in good faith	Mediated by retired judge Layn Phillips and supervised by Special Master Golkin; extensive, adversarial bargaining supports presumption of fairness	NFL participated in same mediation and negotiations	Court found negotiations to be arm’s‑length and in good faith.
Whether class meets Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) for settlement certification	Plaintiffs: >20,000 members (numerosity); shared questions re: NFL knowledge/representations about concussion risks (commonality); class reps (Turner, Wooden) typical; subclass structure with separate counsel protects interests	NFL argued procedural defenses and merits but did not dispute settlement certification for notice purposes	Court conditionally certified class: Rule 23(a) requirements tentatively satisfied; subclass division alleviates intra‑class conflicts.
Whether Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority are met for settlement certification	Plaintiffs: common liability issues (NFL knowledge/concealment) predominate; class settlement avoids multiplicity of suits and provides prompt relief to debilitated class members	NFL defended merits but settlement posture means manageability at trial not required	Court found predominance and superiority satisfied for settlement purposes and conditionally certified under 23(b)(3).
Whether the proposed notice plan satisfies Rule 23 and due process	Plaintiffs: multifaceted notice (direct mail, targeted publication, TV, internet) will reach ~90% of class; notices written plainly and provide opt‑out/objection procedures	No practical contest to sufficiency	Court approved the notice plan and notice forms as meeting Rule 23 and due process.
Whether the court may stay and enjoin parallel proceedings against Released Parties	Plaintiffs: stay/injunction necessary to protect MDL jurisdiction and orderly settlement implementation; parallel state actions would frustrate resolution	Anti‑Injunction Act generally limits such injunctions but exceptions exist to protect federal court jurisdiction in MDLs	Court issued stay and injunction as necessary in aid of jurisdiction; noted exception does not apply to Riddell defendants.

Key Cases Cited

Mehling v. New York Life Ins., 246 F. Supp. 2d 467 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (preliminary approval standard; look for obvious deficiencies and range of possible approval)
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 292 F. Supp. 2d 631 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (factors for preliminary fairness review include arm’s‑length negotiations and adequate investigation)
Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co., 248 F. R. D. 434 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (importance of arm’s‑length mediation and competent counsel in settlement approval)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (requirements for class certification in settlement context; need for structural protections for diverse class interests)
Sullivan v. DB Inv’rs, Inc., 667 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2011) (Rule 23 standards and certification analysis)
In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 516 (3d Cir. 2004) (commonality requirement discussion)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (class commonality requires a contention capable of classwide resolution)
Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48 (3d Cir. 1994) (typicality and alignment of incentives between class reps and class)
In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 282 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2002) (MDL and injunction principles; context for enjoining parallel litigation)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practice Litig., 261 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 2001) (parallel state suits can threaten federal MDL settlement; injunctions to protect jurisdiction)
Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due‑process notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)