Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, CLASS ACTIONS—E.D. Cal.: NCAA, baseball volunteer coaches agree to $49 million settlement of Sherman Act litigation, (May 5, 2025)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

Final court approval, if granted, is expected to provide an average class member payment of nearly $33,000, arguably a “strong result for the class,” where the volunteer coaches had alleged the NCAA and its members illegally conspired to fix compensation at zero.

The federal district court in Sacramento, California, granted preliminary 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 signed the Smart plaintiffs’ proposed memorandum and order on their unopposed motion for preliminary approval. The parties reached an agreement before class certification. Another case brought on behalf of non-baseball volunteer coaches remains pending after class certification occurred in that matter. The Smart plaintiffs’ memo noted that final approval of the instant settlement may be subject to greater scrutiny because it preceded class certification. The court scheduled September 15, 2025 as the date for the final fairness hearing (Smart v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 2:22-cv-02125-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2025)).

Background. The Smart plaintiffs (coaches), who worked for teams in a volunteer coach position in college baseball, filed a putative class action asserting the following claims: (1) violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (2) quantum meruit under various state laws; (3) unjust enrichment under various state laws; and, (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The coaches asserted a horizontal price fixing agreement insofar as a NCAA bylaw capped coach position compensation at $0.

In 2023, the court found the coaches pleaded a facial antitrust injury based on the NCAA no-compensation by-law for volunteer coaches; however, the court ruled that 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.

Instead, the court applied the quick-look analysis and found the plaintiffs alleged facts sufficient to show a Sherman Act Section 1 violation. The quick-look analysis did not require a showing of market power. In its earlier ruling, the court denied a motion to transfer, denied dismissal of the Sherman Act and UCL claims, but granted dismissal of the other claims.

The coaches’ motion said the court recently granted a motion for class certification in the related case, Ray v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, No. 1:23-cv-00425 WBS CSK, 2025 WL 775753 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2025). The Ray matter class consists of volunteer coaches in sports other than baseball. The baseball coaches in the instant matter filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement.

Proposed class. The court granted preliminary approval of a proposed class consisting of all persons who served as a “volunteer coach” in college baseball at an NCAA Division I school from November 29, 2018 to July 1, 2025 pursuant to NCAA Division I Bylaw 11.7.6.

Settlement amount. The proposed gross settlement amount is $49,250,000. Of that, $32,794,850 is for payments to class members. Payments to class members are to be a proportional share of the fund based on the damages model. Up to one-third of the gross settlement amount is for plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, with $14,755,000, about 30%, purportedly already incurred. There may be up $1.5 million for costs and expenses incurred. The settlement administrator is to be paid $30,150. The expert economist is to be paid $35,000 for work on settlement administration. Class representatives are to be paid $7,500 each. There will be a contingency fund of $100,000.

Numerosity. In seeking preliminary approval of settlement, the plaintiffs argued the putative class satisfied the numerosity requirement inasmuch as it had about 1,000 members.

Commonality. The plaintiffs said the question of whether the volunteer coach bylaw violated antitrust law was common to the entire class.

Typicality. The plaintiffs said each class representative was typical of the class because each worked as a volunteer baseball coach at an NCAA Division I school, each was subject to the no-pay volunteer coach bylaw, and each alleged Sherman Act antitrust injury.

Representation. The plaintiffs asserted that the class representatives did not have any conflict with the class because they had the same interest and suffered the same alleged injury as the class members. Their interests were ostensibly aligned, and the Ninth Circuit has specifically approved reasonable incentive payments. The plaintiffs cited that a $5,000 incentive award would be “presumptively reasonable” in the Ninth Circuit, but the $7,500 proposed was “considerably lower” than the average class member recovery and only one-third of one percent of the gross settlement amount. The plaintiffs described at length how they purportedly worked with vigor to pursue class claims.

Predominance. The plaintiffs urged that differences in facts between individual class members and the amount of injury sustained were not enough to overcome predominance of the shared claims. They said an expert proposed a statistical model capable of showing class-wide antitrust impact.

Superiority. The plaintiffs said the damages each coach suffered appeared to be too little to make individual litigation an efficient method of resolving claims. They suggested, and the court preliminarily agreed, that class-wide adjudication would reduce costs and promote efficiency.

Notice. Plaintiffs’ counsel purportedly provided the court with a proposed email notice and proposed postcard notice to be sent to class members with opt-out and objection procedures and date and location of the final approval hearing, all in satisfaction of R. 23(c)(2)(B). The parties selected Kroll Settlement Administration LLC to serve as settlement administrator.

Fairness. The plaintiffs represented that an arms-length negotiation with the NCAA yielded a $49 million total settlement amount and allocation that was a “strong result” for class members and within the range of percentage recoveries California courts have found reasonable. They noted continuing the litigation posed “numerous risks” that made settlement appear to be the sensible course.

Attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs’ counsel purportedly incurred $14,755,000 in fees. The court may reduce the final fee award based on the amount of the settlement. Accordingly, the plaintiffs suggested the court would not evaluate the fee award in considering whether the settlement was adequate.

Class representatives. The court appointed Taylor Smart and Michael Hacker as representatives of the settlement class. The court found them provisionally adequate. The court found Korein Tillery, LLC a provisionally fair and adequate counsel representative of the settlement class and appointed it as conditional class counsel.

Final hearing. The court set a final fairness hearing on September 15, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5 of the Robert T. Matsui federal courthouse in Sacramento.

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: ClassActions WageHour AttorneysFees Procedure CaliforniaNews