By Matthew T. Baltz, EdD, Andrew L. Goldsmith, PhD, & Michael S. Carroll, PhD
Thirty-four former collegiate athletes who played football at different colleges and universities at different times over the course of several decades are seeking to hold BRG Sports, Inc. (BRG Sports), Riddell, Inc. (Riddell), and All American Sports Corporation (All American) liable for, “… several symptoms indicative of long-term brain and neurocognitive injuries…” associated with the defendants business of selling, manufacturing, designing, testing, engineering, marketing, modifying, assembling, inspecting, distributing, and controlling Riddell football helmets. The class action suit alleges negligence, design defects, and failure to warn of the danger and risks associated with concussions. This suit is yet another in a string of similar related lawsuits filed by former football players and their families against sport organizations as a result of hardships experienced due to concussions and related traumatic brain injury (TBI).
As media coverage regarding football-related concussions continues to swirl, 34 former college football players from around the country filed a products liability action against BRG Sports, Riddell, and All American Sports Corporation, the companies involved in manufacturing, marketing, and sales of the helmets they wore. The suit alleges that defendants are liable for their negligent manufacturing of football helmets over a thirty-year period and for failing to warn players of the risks of brain injuries and concussions. The players filing suit seek to hold defendants liable for breaching their duties to properly educate helmet users of the long-term damages resulting from helmet use, as well as their failure to mitigate injuries associated with the foreseeable use of their products, and failure to provide adequate warnings to helmet users. The players allege that they have either suffered permanent injuries, including memory loss, dementia, depression, and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) or remain at an elevated risk for such injuries and latent brain damage as a result of defendants’ conduct.
Within the Complaint, the players provide a detailed background on concussions and traumatic brain injuries, as well as a history of football helmet design. The Complaint also included a detailed account of Riddell’s business and the company’s role in the design and marketing of football helmets over the years. However, the Complaint had two major issues of debate. First, the only information provided about the players themselves was a list of players’ names and an incomplete list of the college and universities at which they participated in football. The schools were not tied to a specific player or presented within the context of specific time periods. The Complaint did not include the years or locations where each player participated in football or used Riddell football helmets. The Complaint also lacked facts or details regarding the individual players’ football careers and injuries they suffered while playing. The second point of contention is that the players filed the suit in the Northern District of California despite the fact that none of the players currently reside in California, none of the players every played in California, and none of their injuries occurred in California. In addition, none of the three defendant companies is incorporated or headquartered in California.
Cause of Action #1: Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Court’s decision to dismiss claims vs. All American Sports Corporation
On October 3, 2017 the Court held a hearing on several pending motions. Following discussion at the hearing, and while matters were still under submission, the Players informed the court of their decision to resolve some of the issues raised by the Defendants’ motions. As part of this, the Players notified the Court of their intent to dismiss All American Sports from the action entirely. At a status conference on November 9, 2017, the Parties informed the Court that they would stipulate a dismissal of All American Sports without prejudice on in personam jurisdiction grounds.
Court’s decision to direct plaintiffs to provide greater detail and specific claims for each plaintiff
Though the Defendants’ made a motion to dismiss the suit prior to its transfer to the Northern District of Illinois, the Court found it to be inappropriate to rule given the Court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over Riddell and improper venue in regards to BRG Sports in the case. Despite this, and because the Defendants requested a more formal summary of the Court’s stated deficiencies in the Players’ Complaint, the Court provided a breakdown of its commentary during the hearing on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss on October 5, 2017.
At the hearing, the Court advised the Players’ counsel that had this complaint stayed with this Court, certain deficiencies would need to be cured. First, the Court pointed out a lack of information and detail about each of the Players in the Complaint. The Complaint only included the names and a general list of the schools the players competed at. This list did not tie specific players to individual schools. In addition, although the Complaint is full of information about the history of concussions and the Defendants’ involvement in the football helmet industry, the suit ultimately seeks relief on behalf of individual plaintiffs. In its current state, the Complaint does not provide adequate information regarding each Player’s use of the products in question, the time period the products were used, the nature of the injuries suffered, or other details that would be required in order to put Defendants on notice of the allegations against them. Since the group of players participated at different times in different states over the course of several decades, it is likely that their experiences were different and not identical as the currently written claim would suggest. As a result, the Court found that the pleadings of the Players were insufficient because the Complaint fails to provide the Defendants with adequate notice of the specific claims against them by each individual plaintiff. Finally, the Court noted that if the action were to remain in this District, the Court would have granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and required the Players to submit an amended complaint that included a separate count and account for each player. Additionally, the Players should provide specific allegations against Riddell and BRG Sports. At a minimum, the court would require separate factual allegations as to each of the Defendants and their role in the injuries suffered by each Player. By doing so, a clear presentation of the issue and claims would be presented and allow the Defendants to prepare appropriate defenses for each claim. During the October 5, 2017 hearing, the Players acknowledged the Court’s instructions and agreed to amend their suit to include a separate cause of each for each Player, including their school, dates of play, position, and injuries suffered.
Cause of Action #2: Stipulation to transfer venue
As part of the October 3, 2017 hearing, the Players agreed to seek to transfer remaining claims against Riddell and BRG Sports to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois where both of the remaining Defendants are headquartered. The Parties together stipulated this transfer at a status conference held by the Court on November 9, 2017.
As pertains to BRG Sports
The Defendants argued that this claim has no plaintiff or defendant with any connection to California following BRG Sports’ relocation of their headquarters from Southern California to Illinois. The Court found that this action could be brought in the Northern District of Illinois as is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Illinois with respect to the Players’ claims. The Court also found that transferring the suit to Illinois would create a more convenient environment for the parties and witnesses involved. The relocation of the case would limit the inconvenience and cost to litigate the action in California, especially since California had virtually no connection to the events in the case, the Players in the case, or the Defendants in the case. Both parties stipulated to the transfer.
As pertains to Riddell, Inc.
The transfer of the claims against Riddell to the Northern District of Illinois was quite simple. The Court explained that the case involved non-California plaintiffs, who did not participate in the state, were not injured in the state, and did not purchase helmets in the state. As a result the relocation of the case to a district with indisputable personal jurisdiction over Riddell was an obvious choice. This is particularly evident since Riddell’s principal place of business is Illinois. The Court found this decision to be legally appropriate, judicially efficient, and economically sound.
Cause of Action #3: Termination of moot pending motions
As a result of discussion, hearings, and agreements, the Court was able to terminate as moot the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint and motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction with respect to Riddell and All American Sports, the Players’ motion for leave to amend the Complaint, and Defendants’ motion to sever the Players’ claims.
Matthew T. Baltz recently earned his EdD in Educational Leadership and Management with a focus on Athletic Administration from Drexel University. He currently teaches in the Easton Area School District in Easton, PA. His research interests include coaching, sport and society, and sustainability of sport.
Andrew L. Goldsmith is an Assistant Professor of Sport Management at Troy University specializing in research related to organizational behavior and ethical decision-making in sport and recreation.
Michael S. Carroll is an Associate Professor of Sport Management at Troy University specializing in research related to sport law and risk management in sport and recreation. He has published over 30 articles and delivered over 50 presentations at professional conferences. He is currently serving as President of the Sport and Recreation Law Association. He lives in Orlando, FL.
