This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Attorneys
Legal Malpractice
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Bernard Parrish, Bob Grant, Roy Lee Jefferson, Walter Beach, Dr. Clinton Jones, Walter Roberts III, Clifton McNeil, Marvin Cobb, John Brodie, Chuck Bednarik, and Paul Hornung, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP; McKool Smith, PC

Published: Mar. 19, 2011 | Result Date: Dec. 15, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:2010-cv-03200 WHA Verdict –  Defense

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Maxwell M. Blecher
(Blecher, Collins & Pepperman PC)

Maryann R. Marzano
(Gradstein & Marzano PC)

Theo G. Arbucci


Defendant

Edward A. Bayley
(Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP)

Pamela Phillips

Jonathan W. Hughes
(Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP)

Jonathan W. Hughes
(Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP)

Diana D. DiGennaro

Diana D. DiGennaro


Facts

Retired NFL players filed suit against the law firms Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and McKool Smith (the firms) after they represented a class of players in a lawsuit against the NFL Players Association and its dba Players, Inc. (collectively, NFLPA), which resulted in a $28.1 million verdict in 2008. While that decision was on appeal, the underlying case settled for $26.25 million. The case below alleged that the NFLPA intentionally excluded retired players from licensing deals, including a deal through which the video game maker, Electronic Arts (EA), purchased the rights to use player names and images in its John Madden franchise.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The retired players alleged legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, contending that the firms' performance in the underlying case was deficient on three bases: (1) the firms failed to present critical evidence to the jury; (2) failed to present a plausible damages theory on one of the claims; and (3) prevented excluded class members from participating in the case, which deprived them of any recovery. Part of the initial evidence that was not presented included incriminating e-mails about the EA deal.

The retired players also alleged that the resulting $26 million settlement was too low, and deprived eligible retirees from any recovery.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The firms contended that that plaintiffs' claims were meritless because the law firms exercised reasoned judgment in deciding what theories to pursue, what evidence to introduce, and what witnesses to present. The decisions the law firms made were reasonable and well within the standard of care. With respect to the result in the underlying case, the trial judge had, in fact, found that the settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate, and that class counsel had "fought . . . like crazy here in the courtroom" and "deserve[d] a lot of credit for . . . [taking] on a powerful defendant who was fighting [the law firms] tooth and nails." Accordingly, the players were barred from re-litigating class counsel's performance.

Result

The court dismissed the players' claims.

Other Information

Case is pending before the Ninth Circuit.


#104507

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390