Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—J.P.M.L.: Pre-trial proceedings consolidated in student-athletes' suits over NCAA financial aid caps, (Jun 5, 2014)

By Jeffrey May, J.D.

An action filed in the federal district court in New Jersey—challenging the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA’s) bylaws that limit athletic grants-in-aid to tuition and fees, room and board, and required course-related books—has been transferred to the federal district court in Oakland, California, for pre-trial proceedings by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). The plaintiff in an action pending in the Northern District of California had moved for centralization. The movant's action seeks damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative nationwide class of individuals who had received grants-in-aid for participating in college football from a member institution of one of the Power Conferences (In re: National Collegiate Athletic Association Athletic Grant-In-Aid Cap Antitrust Litigation, June 4, 2014, Heyburn, J.).

The JPML decided that centralization in the Northern District of California would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation, despite opposition from the defendants and the plaintiffs in the New Jersey action. The NCAA, the “Power Conferences”—the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big Ten Conference, Inc., the Big Twelve Conference, Inc., the Pacific 12 Conference, and the Southeastern Conference, and the smaller conferences—the American Athletic Conference, the Atlantic Sun Conference, Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, and the Sub Belt Conference—opposed centralization or in the alternative proposed the Southern District of Indiana as the transferee forum. The New Jersey plaintiffs—who seek damages for themselves only and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative nationwide class of current players who received or will receive athletic grants-in-aid for participation in either Division I men’s basketball or Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) football—opposed centralization or, alternatively, supported centralization in the District of New Jersey.

The actions shared factual questions relating to whether the NCAA bylaws restricting the amount of athletic grants-in-aid for students participating in FBS football constituted price fixing and restrained trade in violation of the Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the JPML explained. The actions asserted putative nationwide classes that overlapped significantly. Centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary, according to the JPML.

The matter will be assigned to Chief Judge Claudia Wilken, who is presiding over similar ongoing litigation against the NCAA—In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, C.A. No. 4:09-01967.

The case is MDL No. 2541.

Attorneys: Steve W. Berman (Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP) for Shawne Alston. Daniel E. Gustafson (Gustafson Gluek PLLC) for Sharrif Floyd. Daniel J. Connolly (Faegre Baker Daniels LLP) and Jeffrey Alan Mishkin (Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP) for National Collegiate Athletic Assn. Andrew S. Rosenman (Mayer Brown LLP) for The Big Ten Conference, Inc.. Jennifer L. Jones (Proskauer Rose LLP) for Pacific 12 Conference. Kevin Sweeney (Polsinelli PC) for The Big Twelve Conference, Inc. Robert Walker Fuller (Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson PA) for Southeastern Conference. David Erik Albright (Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP) for Atlantic Coast Conference.

Companies: National Collegiate Athletic Assn.; The Big Ten Conference, Inc.; Pacific 12 Conference; The Big Twelve Conference, Inc.; Southeastern Conference; Atlantic Coast Conference

Cases: Antitrust