By Loren Galloway, J.D.
A federal judge granted motions to dismiss filed by the defendants in a suit brought by former Virginia State University (VSU) men’s basketball student-athlete Javon Moore.
Representing himself, Moore filed the suit against the NCAA and the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association, the Division II conference in which VSU competes, in December 2021.
Moore’s handwritten complaint included a litany of allegations—from misappropriation of Moore’s name and image, to breach of warranty, to violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act—and requested a total of $200 million in damages.
Despite its list of allegations, the complaint was not enough to survive the defendants’ motions to dismiss. When reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court considers whether the plaintiff’s factual allegations, if assumed to be true, would give rise to a legal claim. That was Moore’s first problem: the facts alleged in the complaint were so vague that it was difficult to figure out what he was attempting to allege to begin with. The statement of claim reads:
“2014 CIAA & NCAA school Virginia State terminated room and board making Javon Moore homeless with a disability and harass by student and teammates. 2016 student athlete name & likeness licensing NCAA & CIAA used image in arenas, websites, publishing and royalties, selling ticket with image to bring fans. NCAA forced a contract to play and violated my antitrust law.”
The Court’s self-described “liberal reading” of the facts alleged in the complaint were that Moore was a student-athlete at VSU, Moore became homeless in 2014 after the defendants terminated his room and board, and the defendants improperly used Moore’s name, image, and likeness for marketing purposes in 2016.
The nearly indecipherable complaint was effective, however, in getting the NCAA and CIAA to file nearly identical, 24-page memorandums in support of their motions to dismiss, which ultimately argued that, even despite the lack of factual allegations, Moore’s claims all fail based on applicable statutes of limitations.
Which brings us to Moore’s second problem: time seems to have run out. Any name, image, and likeness claim by the former VSU student-athlete would need to be brought under Virginia law and would be subject to a five-year statute of limitations. Breach of contract and warranty claims would also be governed by Virginia law, which requires breach of contact claims to be filed within a year of discovery of the breach, but not more than five years after the breach occurs and also imposes a four-year statute of limitations on breach of warranty claims.
Antitrust claims, as well as discrimination claims, could be brought under both federal and state statutes. However, the statute of limitations in the Sherman Act (federal) and in the Virginia Antitrust Act (state) is four years from the date of the most recent injury. Similarly, the ADA (federal) and Virginia Disabilities Act (state) both have a one-year statute of limitations. The Court noted that a claim under the Fair Housing Act might be within the realm of possibility factually for Moore, based on the information provided in the compliant, but would also be time-barred by a two-year statute of limitations.
Moore was granted two extensions to file a response to the motions to dismiss, but still had not filed any responsive motion when the order to dismiss the case was issued. In his motions for extension, Moore stateed that he is homeless, has a disability, has been impacted by COVID-19, and has encountered issues communicating and receiving documentation from the NCAA, the CIAA, and VSU. He further stated that he has not received court notices because he is homeless and that he is planning to find legal representation going forward in the case. The order to dismiss was issued in late June 2022, and it does not appear that Moore filed an appeal within the 30-day window to do so.
The legal analysis in the case was fairly straightforward, partly because the factual allegations in the complaint were so elusive, and even a generous interpretation of the allegations lead to the conclusion that any claims that might have been made are time-barred.
What’s probably more valuable upon which to reflect is how Moore’s lack of legal representation impacted the way the case played out. It’s certainly possible that the case was baseless and that having a lawyer wouldn’t have helped Moore. But it’s also possible that there’s more to the story than Moore conveyed in his filings and that having legal counsel could have led to a different outcome or, at very least, better-pleaded facts.
Regardless, if we take Javon Moore at his word, this case was one in which a former NCAA student-athlete, who is living with a disability and currently homeless, was unable to obtain legal representation, which presents a larger question—for everyone, but especially for lawyers and college athletics professionals—about access to and advocacy within the courts.
