Riddell Fights Hundreds of Remand Motions

By Joseph M. Hanna published on 30 January 2018

29th January 2018

 

On January 19, 2018, Riddell Sports Group, Inc. opposed a class of former National Football League players’ motion to remand. Riddell is a sports equipment company that specializes in football equipment, particularity football helmets. The players are a part of a massive multidistrict litigation proceeding that is suing Riddell and the NFL. According to the motion, for the past six years, the players have been preceding under one master complaint that controlled all of their claims and superseded their original complaints. In addition, the players had already moved to transfer their master complaint from state court to federal court.

According to the January 19, 2018 motion, over the past six years the players have consistently asserted that Pennsylvania federal court has federal subject-matter jurisdiction over their claims and the parties. However, now the players are attempting to remand their actions back to various state courts, arguing that the Pennsylvania federal court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction. A total of 679 remand motions were filed.

In response to the motions to remand, Riddell argued that the player’s own master compliant alleged that the Pennsylvania court had subject-matter jurisdiction. Second, Riddell argued that the court has jurisdiction over the claims based on Labor Management Relations Act Section 301 preemption. Under the preemption, Riddell filed two motions to dismiss, and according to Riddell, the court must resolve their preemption motions prior to ruling on the player’s jurisdictional issue. Third, according to Riddell, only one set of players addressed the issue of supplemental jurisdiction. Riddell argued that since most of the player’s claims against the NFL have been dismissed, there is no longer a federal claim, and claims against Riddell are supplemental. Fourth, Riddell claimed that the player’s filings are “rife with errors, inconsistencies, misstatements, and other improprieties that render it impossible for the court to rule on them.” Finally, Riddell claimed that the “remand cannot precede an individualized analysis as to each individual’s claim, including the required severance of the plaintiffs’ claims from each other.

 

Views

1989

Related Articles

About the Author

Joseph M. Hanna

Joseph M. Hanna

Joseph Hanna is a partner of Goldberg Segalla and concentrates his practice in commercial litigation with a focus on sports and entertainment law and retail, hospitality, and development litigation. Joe represents sports franchises, professional athletes, and movie studios with various issues related to licensing, contracts, and day-to-day management. He serves as Chair of Goldberg Segalla’s Sports and Entertainment Law Practice Group and editor of the firm’s Sports and Entertainment Law Insider blog. In addition, Joe is the Chair of Goldberg Segalla's Diversity Task Force. He possesses an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.

Official partners 

BASL
Soccerex Core Logo
SLA LOGO 1kpx
YRDA Logo2
SAC logo LawAccord

Copyright © LawInSport Limited 2010 - 2018. These pages contain general information only. Nothing in these pages constitutes legal advice. You should consult a suitably qualified lawyer on any specific legal problem or matter. The information provided here was accurate as of the day it was posted; however, the law may have changed since that date. This information is not intended to be, and should not be used as, a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. LawInSport is not responsible for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this information. Please refer to the full terms and conditions on our website.