Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—E.D. Cal.: Court grants final approval of $49 million settlement between NCAA, baseball volunteer coaches, (Sep 17, 2025)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

The court said the class expressed “overwhelming support” for the settlement, with no members opting out, and many expressing thanks.

The federal district court in Sacramento, California, granted final approval of a $49 million settlement in the Smart plaintiffs’ baseball “volunteer coach” Sherman Act litigation against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The court said it applied heightened scrutiny to exclude collusion because the parties settled before class certification. Class members are to receive an average settlement payment of $36,000 based on years worked and the school they coached at. The requested $14.8 million in attorney fees exceeded the lodestar calculation of $5.9 million by a factor of 2.5, but a non-local rate was appropriate given the lack of available local counsel, and the 2.5 multiplier was also well within the acceptable range in complex class action cases. The court noted the plaintiffs risked their reputations and coaching careers (Smart v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 2:22-cv-02125-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2025)).

Background. The Smart plaintiffs (coaches), who worked for teams in a volunteer coach position in college baseball, filed a putative class action asserting Sherman Act and other state law claims. The coaches asserted a horizontal price fixing agreement insofar as a NCAA bylaw capped coach position compensation at $0.

In 2023, the court applied the quick-look analysis and found the coaches pleaded a facial antitrust injury based on the NCAA no compensation bylaw for volunteer coaches; however, the court ruled application of the per se rule would have been inappropriate in the NCAA context because the NCAA would not be able to offer its product without horizontal restraints.

The parties reached a $49 million settlement agreement before class certification. In April 2025, the court granted preliminary approval and set a fairness hearing for September 15, 2025.

Class approval. After the fairness hearing, the court entered final approval stating it was unaware of any reason to change its earlier conclusions that the putative class satisfied R. 23(a) and (b) requirements. The parties did not say they were aware of any such developments.

Notice. As for R. 23(c) notice requirements, the court found Kroll Settlement Administration LLC (Kroll) estimated nearly 99% of the class received notice. Kroll served the class notice by email, postcard summary notice, and the long-form notice posted on the settlement website. Emails went to 786 class members, and first-class mail went to 893 class members, using last-known addresses. The U.S. Postal Service returned 102 mailings as undeliverable. Sixty-seven were re-mailed, and email notices were also re-sent. Class counsel also instructed the American Baseball Coaches Association to notify its member-coaches. The court said it appreciated the “thorough efforts” to effect notice.

Adequacy. The court said its finding that the proposed class satisfied R. 23(a)(4) for purposes of class certification meant satisfaction of the adequacy factor under R. 23(e)(2)(A).

Negotiation. The court found the parties engaged in settlement discussions, without a mediator, after extensive discovery, several discovery motions, and complex briefing of the motion for class certification. In May, the court instructed counsel to provide more information about settlement discussions in the preliminary approval order to exclude the possibility of collusion. Based on the fairness hearing, the court found the proposed settlement was the result of informed and non-collusive negotiations. The parties represented the settlement was the product of arms-length bargaining.

Relief. The court found the $49 million settlement value called for final approval. The court applied heightened scrutiny because the parties settled before class certification.

The court approved a $36,000 average payment per class member depending on years worked, the school involved, and the plaintiffs’ expert’s method estimating member entitlements. The expert’s method was based on 2023 actual third assistant coach salaries and the value of unprovided health benefits, deflated for the years actually worked.

The plaintiffs’ expert calculated total damages at $49,790,000. The common settlement fund was $49,250,000. The plaintiffs proposed the following allocation:

• $32.9 million for class members;

• $14.8 million for attorney fees;

• $1.4 million for costs and expenses;

• $30,150 for the settlement administrator;

• $35,000 for the economist for settlement administration work;

• $7,500 incentive awards for each of the two named plaintiffs;

• $100,000 contingency fund.

The court found the $32.9 million allocated to class member payments represented about 67% of maximum valuation, a “strong result” for the class and within the range of recoveries California courts have found reasonable.

Among the hurdles the plaintiffs cleared in negotiating the settlement, the court noted the defendants alleged several procompetitive justifications for their policy, any one of which carried a possibility of defeating the plaintiffs’ case. The defendants also challenged the plaintiffs’ expert methodology.

Equitable treatment. The court found the settlement did not improperly discriminate between any class segments. All members were entitled to monetary relief based on time worked as a volunteer coach and the school coached.

Hanlon factors. Hanlon required analysis of the extent of discovery completed beyond the R. 23 factors the court already considered. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). The court found counsel engaged in thorough informal discovery that weighed in favor of final approval of the settlement. There was no government participation in this case, so that factor was neutral. The class expressed “overwhelming support” for the settlement “providing thankful and supportive comments.” No one opted out or objected. In sum, the R. 23(e) and eight Hanlon factors weight in favor of approving the settlement.

Attorney fees. The court found the proposed attorney fee of 30% of the common fund reasonable. Although the common fund benchmark award is 25% in the Ninth Circuit, numerous other antitrust class actions in the circuit awarded attorney fees in excess of 30%. Plaintiffs’ counsel took the matter on contingency and bore the risk of no recovery.

The court also applied the lodestar check against billing records for more than 8,000 hours of work. Partner rates were around $950, non-partner rates around $500. Counsel said they had been awarded similar antitrust class action fees at similar rates in the circuit and cited several fee awards in other sports antitrust class actions in line with their requested rates.

Overall, although the requested $14.8 million fee exceeded the lodestar calculation of $5.9 million by a factor of 2.5, the court said it was satisfied that a non-local rate was appropriate given the lack of available local counsel. The 2.5 multiplier was also well within the acceptable range in complex class action cases. The requested fee was reasonable, as was the request for $1.4 million in costs.

Incentive awards. The $7,500 incentive awards were more than the presumptively reasonable $5,000 award amount in the Ninth Circuit, but the court said it was satisfied with the efforts the plaintiffs applied to the litigation. They risked their reputations and coaching careers.

The Case is No. 2:22-cv-02125-WBS-CSK.

Judge: Shubb, W.

Attorneys: Garrett R. Broshuis (Korein Tillery, LLC) for Taylor Smart. Carolyn Luedtke (Munger Tolles & Olson LLP) for National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Companies: National Collegiate Athletic Association

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews