*1 Before VAN GRAAFEILAND NEWMAN, Judges. Circuit GRAAFEILAND, Judge: VAN July On approved the settlement of an antitrust class action against the National Basketball Association in the pending Dis- Court Southern trict of New York since 1970. Robertson v. Association, National Basketball 72 F.R.D. (S.D.N.Y.1976). On June this Court affirmed the entered on opinion. Carter’s Robertson v. Na- tional Basketball 556 F.2d 682 We refused at that time to pass upon the contention of class member Chamberlain that Carter had erred in him, enjoining pending disposition *2 case, prosecuting sepa- the instant from complaint, including option clause and brought rate antitrust action which he had the compensation compensa- rule. That the against some of in the same defendants tion in case was to be Chamberlain’s com- District Court for the puted Central so as to take into account the fact of District California. Our reason for re- out option year, that he sat his does not fusing challenged was that the issue of whether Cham- remove it from orbit of the permanently enjoined berlain could be had parties rule. The between the in yet argued rule, not in Court. both cases concept involved the of question Id. at 687. The has now compensation not the manner in which was below, argued unpublished opin- and in an computed. 17, 1979, ion dated January Judge Carter appellant’s argument We find no merit in judicata

held that the doctrine of res bars jurisdic- that the district court was without by the claims asserted Chamberlain in the judicata res tion to determine the effect of litigation. California We affirm. its judgment appellant’s in California ac- tion. counsel Appellant’s conceded below The nature and of history the in Kentucky Corp. Fried Chicken v. Di- litigation stant are detailed in Car Packaging Corp., (5th 552 F.2d versified 601 opinion disposing ter’s 1975 of various mo 1977), “good authority” Cir. was tions, which is reported F.Supp. 867. judge to decide res grievances Chamberlain’s individual con Although by issue. a concession counsel cern option the reserve or clause in the jurisdiction cannot confer does not oth- two-year Angeles contract with the Los exist, in was simply erwise counsel this case signed Lakers which he in 1971 and the making a correct statement of the law. compensation required any rule other jurisdiction equity pre- of courts of to team sign with whom he after the relitigation vent questions of settled as be- expiration option compensate of his parties long tween the before the court has Lakers for their loss. The Lakers had exer been established. See Local Loan Co. v. year option cised for the 1973-74 availa Hunt, 292 54 U.S. 78 contract, ble to them under this but Cham (1934); Woolworth, L.Ed. 1230 Root v. 150 play year. berlain refused to and sat out the 401, 411-12, 136, 138-39, 14 S.Ct. 37 He contends that thereafter the compensa (1893); 1123 cf. L.Ed. 28 U.S.C. prevented tion rule his effectively being Appellant, who authorized the bringing of signed other in by league, teams be behalf, the class action on his whose attor- cause each team by was advised the NBA ney appeared argued and at the signed Commissioner that if it hearing, accepted part and who has of the compensate would have to Los Angeles can proceeds, rightly con- for the loss of Chamberlain’s services dur tend court’s that the district ing the granting 1973-74 season. In binding no as to him. injunction, preliminary Judge Carter found happened “what to Chamberlain is appel We likewise find no merit in merely another variation on the allegedly lant’s contention anti-competitive practices challenged in this refusing appellant’s request in erred lawsuit.” Robertson v. National Basketball discovery establishing further aimed at (S.D.N.Y. uniqueness of claim. Prior to the entry holding judica doctrine of res judgment, persons deposed, of applicable, ta again found 200,000 approximately produced, documents Chamberlain’s claim of uniqueness to be 45,000 and pages testimony transcribed. without agree. merit. We Appellant suggested has no additional areas action, suit, The class like investigation Chamberlain’s pertinent that would be attacked the legality option of the clause uniqueness. his claim of His “Statement rule, and the compensation Facts”, and the support his argu submitted members, part as of the judicata, cove- ment res discloses no facts nanted any not to sue of the defendants already that were not before the district any the claims against unnecessary court. Protection dis-

covery discretionary with the trial Carter stated that “Chamberlain rulings will be reversed object long as does not the settlement as showing on a clear of abuse of discretion. litigation his rights to continue his remain Onassis, Galella v. 487 F.2d Cir. unaffected the Class covenant not 1973); Exchange, Rosin v. New Stock Id. at sue.” 70. But he refused to rule on Inc., (7th 1973), cert. F.2d time, prefer- issue at that *3 1564, denied, 977, 94 ring subsequent hearing. instead to have a (1974). L.Ed.2d 873 appropriate. Id. This was 7A probably Cf. 1789, Wright (“[I]t & Miller is well § appeal, did prior appellant On the that adjudicating settled the court a challenge repre- adequacy the of the class predetermine cannot general sentation or the fairness own judgment; its that can be tested settlement, nor did he contend he had suit.”). a subsequent But the result been opportunity denied an to be heard. ruling is never that Chamberlain has had a Robertson v. National Basketball Associa- applied on the fairness of the settlement as tion, supra, 556 F.2d at 684-86. This Court him, if it is interpreted to bar his Califor- having upheld approval the trial court’s nia claim. appellant bound Wright judgment. 7A & it, problem, as I see is that Chamber- Miller, Procedure, Federal Practice and presented lain no facts (1972 Supp. 1979). because there were perhaps present, none to not, that his show case was as the district do, we holding, as the terms of concluded, ultimately Robertson v. binding upon class are action settlement National Basketball we make no deter- 88, (S.D.N.Y.1976), “merely an- mination as to whether those terms have allegedly other variation on anticompet- complied with so as to a preclude practices” challenged itive the overall cause of action their issue breach. That law suit. The court therefore had no basis is not before us. concluding either that We ap- affirm the and order higher fund should be because of appel- pealed from. special lant’s situation or distribu- tion should formula be revised. Judge (concurring): While I in Judge concur Van Graafei- opinion

land’s goes, as far as it

it does not directly deal with the rather

difficult issue whether lost

right when challenge was initially approved in Technically, 1976. America, Appellee, UNITED STATES of it is true that Chamberlain “did not chal- lenge the adequacy representa- tion or general fairness of the settle- McGRATH, English Jon N. ment” and did not he “contend that Raymond Masciarelli, D. opportunity denied an to be heard.” Appellants. See 72 (S.D.N.Y.1976), aff’d, F.R.D. Nos. 1977) F.2d 682 (order approving United States Court

settlement) (“Counsel for Chamberlain indi- cated that his concern was settle- ment be barrier to Chamberlain’s Argued March

suit NBA. He had no other objection settlement.”). ap- But he parently refrained from on doing so

assumption that res not bar would

his other suit.