Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00943/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00943-48/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD PAUL PARISH, HERBERT

ANTHONY ADDERLEY, and WALTER

ROBERTS III, on behalf of themselves and

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE

PLAYERS INCORPORATED d/b/a

PLAYERS INC., a Virginia corporation,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-00943 WHA

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DECERTIFY THE CLASS

Defendants’ motion to decertify the class is denied. In its motion, defendants argue that

the Court’s order denying summary judgment creates an inherent conflict among the class

between those who licensed their rights through ad hoc agreements and those that are seeking

royalty payments through group licensing agreements. In particular, defendants cite to the

following language (Dkt. 353 at 7): 

If defendants planned to have companies like EA obtain all

retired player rights through ad hoc agreements, it is unclear

why they worked so hard to recruit retired players to sign

GLAs in the first place. It remains a genuine issue of material

fact whether defendants had a duty, created by the plain

wording of the GLA, to ensure that retired players’ rights were

licensed primarily through the GLAs rather than through ad

hoc agreements and that retired players, like active players,

shared in a pool of money generated by those group licensing

deals.

Case 3:07-cv-00943-WHA Document 391 Filed 09/02/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Defendants’ previously-considered argument must be rejected again. Significantly, the Court

has repeatedly made clear that the class has a common interest in determining what rights, if

any, they were entitled to under the GLAs. As further stated in the order denying summary

judgment (id. at 9):

The $30 million in revenues that defendants paid out to certain

retired players under ad hoc licensing deals is not at issue here. 

Rather, what is at issue is the collective group licensing that

defendants engaged in, for which defendants paid active

players an “equal share” royalty but paid class members

nothing. The retired players have a common interest in

establishing whether the GLAs entitled them to something.

The money paid to certain retired players under ad hoc agreements does not affect whatever

rights the class members have under the GLAs. As noted in previous orders, active players

were paid an equal share royalty under their GLAs despite their ability to enter in separate ad

hoc agreements to license their images individually. The facts having not changed, defendants’

motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00943-WHA Document 391 Filed 09/02/08 Page 2 of 2