Pats Civil Suit Filed

Willie Gary and a class made up of fans have filed a class action against the Pats for taping the Rams walk-through practice prior to the 2002 SB, which the Pats won 20-17. First, it is really important to note that it is both the Pats' and the NFL's position this taping did not take place. Still, this will get a ton of press because it is so much fun to talk about a $100M (that's no joke) cheating suit. Here is more legal analysis than you might get elsewhere - and I promis it will be fun.

[ If you can't be bothered to read to the end, this case will fail for 1 reason: Causation. You have to show that the alleged breach, tort, or fraud actually caused the Rams to lose the game. Given the myriad variables in a football game, I think that's damn near impossible.]

The suit alleges:

1. Tortious Interference With Business Relationship: Here is a normal case: I own a company; you own a competing company. You tell one of my clients that I am a fraud and he cancels a contract with me. You didn't do it to help your business, but just to hurt my business. The suit. The lawsuit makes the case that the Rams' ticketholders had a contract with the stadium and the NFL for seats to an honest game played by the rules. Pats cheated and interfered with the Rams's ability to deliver. Novel, huh?
   
   
2. Fraud: Simple enough.
   
3. The RICO Act: Yes, the same act used to bust drug-traffickers. The Pats association is the mob, the phone calls, etc. used to arrange the taping is the concerted effort, and the purpose is allegedly fraud. And there you have it, racketeering. I am sure Congress had exactly this in mind.
   
4. Violation of the Rights of Third Party Beneficiaries: This is alleged separately from the contract claim for some reason, but it is just a claim for breach of contract. A normal case: I make a contract with Bill to paint Bill's house if, in return, he pays RSC $10,000. I paint the house and Bill never pays. Even RSC did not sign the contract, she is named in the contract as a beneficiary (a third party) and can sue Bill. The claim here is that the Rams and Pats and NFL had a contract, from which the fans derive benefit. Breach that contract and you have to answer to the fans.
   
5. Contract: This is even more remote. Plaintiffs claim that, as fans, they have an "implied or quasi" contract with the fans. To use the prior example, if Bill and I have no formal contract, but he just says, "Paint my house and you'll get $10,000," and I paint the house, a court will imply a contract because it would be unfair for Bill to get the benefit without paying for it. In this case, it is a real stretch. In the example, Bill indicated he would pay for the benefit of having his house painted. Here, what benefit are the Rams' fans claiming? The implied contract can't be that the Pats agree to lose to the Rams. It must be for an entertaining game. The 2002 was certainly that -- and the outcome was in question until the very end.
   
6. LA Unfair Trade Practices: This is too esoteric for a blog post. Suffice it say that it reads a lot like fraud.

If you are going to shoot for silly claims, why not go all the way? How about?

1. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as a result of beating the Rams.
   
2. Trespass. As ticket owners, the fans hold a stake in stadium and the Pats invaded that in an unauthorized manner by taping.
   
3. Battery. Players assume the risk of playing a fair game of football. Yet, if you know the signals, you know where they were going to be, and players that otherwise would have run untouched down the field got an unwelcome and unexpected beat down.
   
4. Why not include the city of St. Louis and all Rams's merchandise sellers? They all lost revenue when the post-SB sales bump didn't happen.
   
5. Even more obscure battery or even assault with a deadly weapon. Stats indicate that spousal abuse is much higher the night a sports team loses a game. Clearly, the Pats must have known that their wretched ways would cause more beatings. Bring on the claims!

Defenses:

1. As stated above, a football happened between the taping and the loss. It is an "Intervening Cause" preventing the taping from causing the loss, as required for these claims to hold up. It would be nearly impossible to show how any one play was affected by the Pats knowing the Rams game plan. I'd toss this out on a Motion to Dismiss.
   
2. As for the contracts, I don't think that a reasonable judge would reach this, but one should make the argument that an opposing team cannot possibly owe a duty to Rams' fans. Their interests are totally at odds. More importantly, liability in this case would mean that fans of every team could sue them for losing claiming negligent coaching or play, etc. and cite lost profits from merch sales, etc.

Bottom line, this is silly.