Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—DMinn: NFL Players' Request to Reopen Settlement Denied , (Jan 3, 2013)

By Jeffrey May, J.D.

The federal district court in Minneapolis has denied a petition filed by the National Football League Players’ Association (NFLPA) to reopen and enforce a stipulation and settlement agreement (SSA) that resolved an antitrust class action brought against the NFL by players in the early 1990s. The court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the agreement because the NFLPA had dismissed with prejudice all claims relating to the SSA as part of the 2011 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and in settlement of another antitrust lawsuit (White v. National Football League, December 31, 2012, Doty, D.).

The NFLPA filed the petition in 2012, claiming, among other things, collusion based on an alleged secret $123 million salary cap during the 2010 League Year. The NFL successfully argued that the petition should be dismissed because the NFLPA had dismissed with prejudice all claims relating to the SSA, which was amended in 2006 and lapsed by its own terms at the conclusion of the 2010 League Year.

In August 2011, the NFLPA and NFL executed a stipulation of dismissal (SOD) of an antitrust action. That suit alleged that an anticipated “lockout” of players by the NFL would constitute a group boycott in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The NFLPA and NFL also entered into a new CBA at the same time. Under the SOD, the parties agreed “to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims, known and unknown, whether pending or not, regarding the [SSA].”

The NFLPA argued that the SOD had no preclusive effect because the court did not approve the stipulation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). However, a stipulation of dismissal did not require Rule 23(e) approval because the 2006 SSA, which was unlike a consent decree with indefinite court oversight, had lapsed, the court explained. Thus, the NFLPA released the claims it was attempting to assert. The court acknowledged that had the parties not executed the SOD, jurisdiction to enforce the SSA would have been present.

The case is Civil No. 4-92-906 (DSD).

Thomas J. Heiden (Latham & Watkins) for plaintiffs. Daniel J. Connolly (Faegre & Benson) for defendants.

Cases: Antitrust MinnesotaNews