The Supreme Court of Nevada has affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss the National Football League (NFL) from a lawsuit brought by two men, who were victims in the infamous Adam “Pacman” Jones incident in February of 2007 at a Las Vegas Strip Club.
In a unanimous ruling, the high court, agreed with the lower court that, in essence, it was a stretch to claim the NFL was liable for negligent hiring, retention and supervision, and respondeat superior. The court also handed a defeat to Jones and the individual defendants, who had alleged that the jury verdict was “inconsistent,” finding that their appeal was not timely.
The incident in question occurred in Las Vegas during the NBA All-Star weekend in February 2007. The aforementioned Jones, an NFL football player, went to a strip club, bringing with him his buddies and a bag of money for tipping the dancers. “At approximately 4:30 a.m., two female dancers began fighting over tip money, giving rise to some sort of melee,” wrote the court. “Although there are several contradictory versions of what exactly occurred, these disputed facts are inapplicable to the issues on appeal. In the end, after Jones and his entourage had been removed from the club, club security officers, Aaron Cudworth and Thomas Urbanski, were both shot by Arvin Edwards. Cudworth and Urbanski survived the shooting.”
Months after the shootings, Cudworth, Urbanski, and Urbanski’s wife each filed complaints against Jones and several other defendants in state district court. Additionally, the Urbanskis filed claims against the NFL asserting causes of action for negligent hiring, retention and supervision, and respondeat superior. The Cudworth and Urbanski cases were consolidated.
Prior to trial, the court dismissed the NFL for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that it possessed neither specific nor general jurisdiction over the NFL. As mentioned above, the Urbanskis appealed.
“The Urbanskis argue that the NFL’s contacts with Nevada are sufficiently continuous and systematic, such that it is essentially at home in Nevada,” wrote the high court. “The Urbanskis point to several NFL operations, including (1) the NFL’s merchandising ‘stream of commerce’ activities in Nevada; (2) the NFL’s interactive website, including paid-for fantasy football; (3) the NFL network and DirecTV ‘Sunday Ticket’ television products; (4) the NFL’s recruiting of Nevada players; and (5) the NFL’s ‘Punt, Pass and Kick’ competition. The NFL does not dispute the existence of the facts asserted by the Urbanskis; rather, the dispute lies in whether such facts constitute a continuous and systematic presence in Nevada.”
The plaintiffs’ arguments fall short, according to the Supreme Court. “If the NFL’s in-state activities were coupled with more substantial contacts, they could support a finding of general jurisdiction. But in this case, there are no facts similar to those in Perkins such that the NFL maintained an approximate physical presence and would essentially be ‘at home’ in Nevada. See Goodyear, 564 U.S. at, 131 S. Ct. at 2857. In light of all of the NFL’s contacts with the State of Nevada, we hold that the district court did not err in ruling that it did not have general jurisdiction over the NFL.”
The high court also agreed with the district court that there was no specific jurisdiction over the NFL. “Nevada courts may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant (1) ‘purposefully avails himself or herself of the protections of Nevada’s laws, or purposefully directs her conduct towards Nevada;’ and (2) ‘the plaintiff’s claim actually arises from that purposeful conduct’ within Nevada. Dogra v. Liles, 129 Nev., 314 P.3d 952, 955 (2013).
“Here, even if the NFL purposefully availed itself toward Nevada, the Urbanskis’ claims do not arise from that purposeful conduct. The Urbanskis contend that Jones is an employee of the NFL 100 percent of the time; however, there is nothing in the record to indicate any sort of ‘on the clock’ employee or agency relationship regarding Jones’ late night activities in Las Vegas. See Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, Jones’ actions cannot be imputed upon the NFL, and the Urbanskis have failed to make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts.”
Meanwhile, the high court also considered the individual defendants’ argument on appeal that the jury verdict “is inconsistent because the damage awards for Cudworth and Urbanski do not properly correspond to the jury’s findings of liability, both factually and as a matter of law.”
However, Jones “waived his right to appeal on inconsistent jury verdict grounds, because he failed to object before the jury had been discharged.”
Thomas Urbanski et al. v. National Football League et al.; Supreme Ct. Nev.; No. 61524, No. 61732, 2015 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 10; 1/8/15
