Class Asks Judge for Summary Judgement in Reebok, NFL Class Action

The National Football League and Reebok International Ltd. have violated federal antitrust laws through licensing agreements that has hurt competition, a proposed class alleges and is asking that a California federal judge find the two entities guilty of violating such antitrust laws.

The proposed class filed a motion for summary judgement with U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, requesting that he make a ruling on the antitrust issues and leave the decision about damages for trial.

The NFL and Reebok argued that the plaintiffs had violated the one-way intervention doctrine, which Judge Davila asked questions about at the hearing on Thursday, Jan. 22.

The defendants opposed the motion for summary judgement on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not yet been granted class certification. There is a hearing scheduled for April to address class certification.

“I’m focusing on this intervention aspect, the procedural aspect,” Judge Davila said, asking the plaintiffs attorneys for a defense of the motion for summary judgement.

One of the plaintiff’s attorneys argued that “the doctrine is discretionary. It’s not an iron-clad prohibition,” adding that when the NFL and Reebok had asked the court to dismiss the antitrust class action lawsuit twice and when they filed a motion for judgement on the pleadings.

“Had they won that motion, it would have bound only the named plaintiff,” the plaintiffs’ attorney said. “They can’t now come to the court and say, ‘You can’t hear the merits.'”

While the NFL’s attorney contends that there aren’t any other previous antitrust class action lawsuit rulings to support the plaintiffs’ attorney’s waiver argument, the plaintiffs’ attorney said that deciding if the NFL and Reebok violated antitrust laws is a simple matter.

A class action settlement was reached in a similar antitrust class action lawsuit filed against Reebok and the Dallas Cowboys, in which the Cowboys had claimed that the licensing agreements between the two entities resulted in a “classic price-fixing cartel,” the plaintiffs’ attorney in the NFL, Reebok class action lawsuit argued.

However, Judge Davila argued that the admission deserves additional investigation or scrutiny, adding that “people go into police departments every day and say, ‘I shot Kennedy.'”

The NFL’s attorney also argued that its debatable if such an admission in the Dallas Cowboys class action lawsuit is applicable to this NFL, Reebok class action lawsuit.

The antitrust class action lawsuit was filed in October 2012 by plaintiff Patrick Dang, who alleged that under a licensing agreement struck between the NFL and Reebok in 2000 in which Reebox was given sole permission to sell NFL team apparel with team logos resulted in a price increase of products and led him and other class members  to being overcharged for such products.

Plaintiff Michael Villa became the class representative in 2014, after Dang dropped out due to health problems.

The plaintiffs are represented by Roy A. Katriel of The Katriel Law Firm and Ralph B. Kalfayan of Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens LLP.

The NFL is represented by Gregg H. Levy, Derek Ludwin and Sonya D. Winner of Covington & Burling LLP.

Reebok is represented by Joshua N. Holian and Michael Nelson of Latham & Watkins LLPand Timothy B. Hardwicke of GoodSmith Gregg & Unruh LLP.

The NFL, Reebok Class Action Lawsuit is Dang v. San Francisco Forty Niners Ltd. et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-05481, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: The NFL, Reebok class action settlement is now open! Click here to file a Claim. 

UPDATE 2: On February 23, 2017, Top Class Actions viewers who filed timely and valid claims for the California NFL Apparel class action settlement began receiving checks worth as much as $63.15!