The Denver Post and National Law Journal have more on that lawsuit by Lakewood, Colorado lawyer Charles Humphrey and New Jersey’s Gardy & Notis (Aug. 2) claiming that CBS, ESPN and other media outlets are abetting unlawful gambling by sponsoring fantasy sports games, and seeking diversion of millions in resulting revenues into the plaintiff’s own fisc. Mississippi College School of Law sports law prof Michael McCann says Humphrey’s suit lacks “moral weight”. (Joel Grostephan, “Lawyer cites 1710 law in suit”, Denver Post, Aug. 15 (via Suz at Large); Tresa Baldas, “Fantasy Sports League or Real-Life Gambling?”, National Law Journal, Aug. 21)
Posts Tagged ‘sports’
Update: Mother’s Day stadium promotion
An Orange County, Calif. judge has refused to dismiss attorney Alfred Rava’s lawsuit (May 11, May 23) claiming that the baseball Angels and a game sponsor “discriminated against men by giving tote bags to only women during a Mother’s Day baseball game”. (“Judge refuses to dismiss discrimination suit against Angels”, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 17). P.S. More from the Boston Globe, Aug. 22.
Indians Sue, Yet Again, to Ban “Redskins” Name
The only thing worse than a frivolous lawsuit is a frivolous repeat of a frivolous lawsuit:
A group of Native Americans filed a new legal challenge yesterday to trademarks for the name and logo of the Washington Redskins, saying the team’s name is a racial slur that should be changed.
A petition filed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by six Native Americans represents a second chance for Indians to challenge the football franchise’s name. The team prevailed in an earlier fight when a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the plaintiffs waited too long under trademark law to object. This time, the complaint was filed with a new set of plaintiffs.
…
“The term ‘redskin’ was and is a pejorative, derogatory, denigrating, offensive, scandalous, contemptuous, disreputable, disparaging and racist designation for a Native American person,” the complaint says.
Whatever thesaurus the plaintiffs are using, I want one. I’m surprised the complaint didn’t add “just plain icky.”
Fantasy sports leagues? Shut ’em down
A class-action law firm, Gardy & Notis, is suing ESPN, Viacom, Disney, CBS, Hearst, and The Sporting News, among others, alleging that their participation in the thriving field of fantasy sports leagues violates the anti-gambling laws of New Jersey. DeadSpin notes (Jul. 31) that named plaintiff Charles Humphrey “is a resident of Colorado, not New Jersey, and he points out in the suit that he, in fact, has never played any of these fantasy games, unlike you, you heathens.” Humphrey’s press release is here and the complaint (PDF) is here (via Bill Childs and Kevin Heller). The complaint asserts a right to recovery under qui tam (bounty-hunting) laws of Illinois, Georgia and the District of Columbia which allow random outsiders to file lawsuits to recover moneys reaped by way of unlawful gambling.
Sponsor a surf event? Too scary for ABA
The American Bar Association, which is holding its annual meeting in Hawaii next week, has shied away from co-sponsoring the National Lawyers on Longboards Surfing Contest. “They were freaked out about the liability issue related to a surf contest, even though we had liability insurance and everything,” said Honolulu attorney Lea Hong, an organizer of the event. Instead, the Hawaii state bar and LexisNexis will be serving as sponsors. Hong says “participants have signed what she calls ‘a pretty serious liability waiver'” and the contest rules have been drafted with an eye to making them loophole-free given the nature of the contestants. The competition used to be called the Land Shark Contest, but Hong says “that seemed a little too negative”. (Stewart Yerton, “Liabilities scare lawyers’ group away from surf meet”, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Jul. 26).
“Helmets could also detract from the surfing experience”
Gee, do you think? After successful campaigns for bicycle helmets, here comes pressure for helmets for pole vaulting, soccer and, yes, maybe even surfboard riding (Hugo Martin, “Today, helmets for all”, Los Angeles Times, Jul. 24).
Mistaken for Michael Jordan, so he sues
By reader acclaim: Allen Heckard of Portland, Ore. “says he’s been mistaken as Michael Jordan nearly every day over the past 15 years and he’s tired of it.” So he’s suing the basketball star and Nike founder Phil Knight for $832 million in all. “’I’m constantly being accused of looking like Michael and it makes it very uncomfortable for me,’ said Heckard. Heckard is suing Jordan for defamation and permanent injury and emotional pain and suffering. He’s suing Knight for defamation and permanent injury for promoting Jordan and making him one of the most recognized men in the world.” Why $832 million, exactly? “Well, you figure with my age and you multiply that times seven and ah, then I turn around and ah I figure that’s what it all boils down to.” That’s no more arbitrary as a calculation than some damage assertions we can think of that have done very well in court (Pat Dooris, “Local man sues Jordan, Nike for resemblance”, KGW, Jul. 7)(& more). Update Aug. 3: he drops case.
“Lawyers took our diving board”
“Hard data are difficult to come by, but Pool and Spa News estimates that, out of the millions of jumps and dives off high boards each year, there are, on average, fewer than 20 spinal injuries. Most head injuries actually occur from people diving off the pool’s ledge into the shallow end. Diving boards actually reduce these types of injuries because they visually tip off swimmers about which end of the pool is deep.” (Steve Moore, “Off the deep end”, Wall Street Journal/OpinionJournal.com, Jun. 23). More: Sept. 6, 2004 and links from there.
Disney World ride fatality
Writes Prof. Childs (Jun. 15) of the lawsuit over the death of a four-year-old hours after taking part in the Mission:Space ride:
Setting aside the allegation of a failure to respond properly (about which I know nothing), the lawsuit presents a fairly fundamental question in amusement litigation: when a ride does exactly what it is supposed to do, and when that action is well-disclosed to riders and is safe for the vast majority of people, who, if anyone, is responsible when that action causes foreseeable injuries to people with unknown preexisting conditions?…
As for a warnings claim, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a ride with such thorough signage.