Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Bernard Parrish v. National Football League Players, Inc., et al.
Date: 01-14-2009
Case Number: 3:07-cv-00943-WHA
Judge: William H. Alsup
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco County
Plaintiff's Attorney: Samuel F. Baxter, Anthony M. Garza and Brett Maurice Charhon, McKool Smith, P.C., Dallas, Texas; Ronald Stanley Katz, L. Peter Parcher and Ryan S. Hilbert, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, Palo Alto, California;
and
Noel Scott Cohen, Ryan Hilbert and Chad S. Hummel, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, Los Angeles, California
Defendant's Attorney: Elizabeth Haley and Jeffrey L. Kessler, Jason D. Clark, David G. Feher, David L. Greenspan, Jane Marie Guthrie, Eric Laufgraben, Eamon O'Kelly, Todd Laurence Padnos, Ian L. Papendick, Jeffrey S. Rugg and Molly Donovan, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, New York, New York and San Francisco, California
and
Claire Elise Goldstein and Bruce S. Meyer, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Redwood Shores, California
The defenses asserted by defendants are not available.
According to the Court: "A monumental fact was never adequately explained by the defendants -- how could it have been that defendants lobbied thousands of retired players for fourteen years to sign up for [the marketing program] yet never paid one cent to any retired player under the program? Put differently, if retired players' images and identities were really the undesirable "dog food" contended by the defense, then why did they try so hard to sign up the [retired players] for so long -- only to never pay a penny?"
About This Case
What was the outcome of Bernard Parrish v. National Football League Players, Inc....?
The outcome was: Plaintiffs' verdict for $7.1 million in compensatory damages and $21 million in punitive damages after determining that the union had failed to share revenue generated by marketing agreements with companies that manufacture video games, trading cards and other products. According to the Court: "A monumental fact was never adequately explained by the defendants -- how could it have been that defendants lobbied thousands of retired players for fourteen years to sign up for [the marketing program] yet never paid one cent to any retired player under the program? Put differently, if retired players' images and identities were really the undesirable "dog food" contended by the defense, then why did they try so hard to sign up the [retired players] for so long -- only to never pay a penny?"
Which court heard Bernard Parrish v. National Football League Players, Inc....?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco County, CA. The presiding judge was William H. Alsup.
Who were the attorneys in Bernard Parrish v. National Football League Players, Inc....?
Plaintiff's attorney: Samuel F. Baxter, Anthony M. Garza and Brett Maurice Charhon, McKool Smith, P.C., Dallas, Texas; Ronald Stanley Katz, L. Peter Parcher and Ryan S. Hilbert, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, Palo Alto, California; and Noel Scott Cohen, Ryan Hilbert and Chad S. Hummel, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, Los Angeles, California. Defendant's attorney: Elizabeth Haley and Jeffrey L. Kessler, Jason D. Clark, David G. Feher, David L. Greenspan, Jane Marie Guthrie, Eric Laufgraben, Eamon O'Kelly, Todd Laurence Padnos, Ian L. Papendick, Jeffrey S. Rugg and Molly Donovan, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, New York, New York and San Francisco, California and Claire Elise Goldstein and Bruce S. Meyer, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Redwood Shores, California.
When was Bernard Parrish v. National Football League Players, Inc.... decided?
This case was decided on January 14, 2009.