2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
5-19-2010 

# C arl M a ye r v . B i ll B elichick
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2237

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" C arl M a ye r v . B i ll Be l ichick " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1240. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1240

### PREC ED EN TIAL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT
No. 09- 2237
CARL J
. MAYER,

Appe l l ant
v . BI LL BELI CHI CK; THE NEWENGLAND PATRI OTS;

NA TI ON ALFO OT BA LLLE AGUE
OnAp pealfrom

the Unite d S tate s Dis tric t Court fo r the Distri ct

of New Jer se y ( D. C. Ci vi lNo. 3- 07- c r - 04671) Distri ct Judg e: Ho n. Garr ett E. Brown , Jr.
Argue d Apri l14, 2010 BE FO RE : FISHE R, and C OWEN , Circuit Judg es and PRATTER*, Di s tri c t Judge ( Fi l e d: May

19, 2010)

*H on orableGene E.K. Pratte r, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge for t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2 

### Br uc e I
. Afr an, Es q. ( Argue d) 10 Br a eburn Dri ve Pri nc e t on, NJ08540 CarlJ
. Maye r , Es q. ( Argue d) Maye r Law Gr oup 66 W i the r s poon Str e e t , Sui t e 414 Pri nc e t on, NJ08540 Couns e l f or Appe llant Dani e lL. Gol dbe rg, Es q. ( Argue d) Charl e s L. Sol om ont , Es q. Bing ham McCutc hen On e FederalStre et Bos t on, MA 02110 Davi d Ki s t l e r , Es q. St ephe n M. Orl ofs ky , Es q. B l ankR o me 301 Carne gi e Ce nt e r , Thi r d Fl oor Pri nc e t on, NJ08540 Co u n sel fo r A

p p ellees B ill B elich ick a n d

N ewEng la n d

Pa trio t Football Club PaulM. Ec kl e s , Es q. Shepar d Gol dfe i n, Es q. ( Argue d) Ska dde n, Ar

ps , Sl at e , Me a ghe r

& Fl om 4 T imes Square Ne w York, NY 10036 Co u n sel fo r A

p p ellee N a tio n a l Football Le ague
OP INI ON
COW EN, Ci r c ui t

Judge3 Pl ai nt i ff Car l J
. M ay erappea l s fr om the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey g ra n tin g th e re sp e c tiv e m o tio n s to d ism iss f iled b yD e f

e n d a n ts B ill B e lich ick a n d th e N e w E n g lan d P a trio ts (“ P a trio ts” ) a s w e ll a s b yD e f

e n d a n t N a tio n a l F o o tb a ll L e a g u e (“ N F L ” ). W e w ill a f f ir m . 

### I
. T hi s hi ghl yunus ual cas e w as fi l ed bya di s appoi nt ed footbal l fan a nd s eas on t i cket

- hol deri n r es pons e t o t he s o- cal l ed “Spy gat e” s canda l
. T hi s s canda l ar os e w hen i tw as di s cover ed t hatt he Patr i ot s w er e s urr ept i t i ous l yvi deot api ng the s i gnal s of th e iro p p o n e n ts
. M ay er , a N ew J er s eyr es i dentand N ew Y or k J et s s eas on tic k e t- h o ld e r, i n itia lly f ile d h is c o m p la in t o n S e p te m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 7
. H e n a m e d a s D e f

e n d a n ts th e P a trio ts, h e a d q u a rte re d in M a s s a c h u s e tts , a s w e ll a s th e te a m ’s h e a d c o a c h , B e lic h ic k , a M as s achus et t s r es i dent
. M ay ereventual l yfi l ed an a m ended c o m p lain t o n A u g u st 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 , w h ich a d d e d th e N F L , w ith its h e a d q u a rt e rs in N e w Y o rk , a s a D e f e n d a n t. W e, l i ke the D i s t r i ctC our tbefor e us , m us tl ook t o t he amended compl ai nt , acc ept i ng i t s w el l

- pl eade d fac tual all eg ati o n s as true fo r pu rpo ses o f th is ap p ea l. T h e “ P reli m inary St at ementof the C as e” s ect i on of thi s ext ens i ve pl eadi ng provided a fa i r descr i pti on of the gis tof M ay er’ s case, atl east agai ns tt he Patr i ot s and B el i chi ck: 2. T hi s cas e i s br oughtbya N ew Y or k J et s s eas on t i cket

- hol deron behal f of a l l s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed N ew Y or k J et s s eas on t i cket

- hol der s and other N ew Y or k J et s t i cket

- hol der s agai ns tthe D efe ndantN ew E ngl and Patr i ot s and thei rcoac h, D efe ndantB i l l B el i chi ck. T he cor e of thi s act i on i s t hatt he D efe ndant s , dur i ng a game w i t h t he N ew Y or k J et s on Sept ember9, 2007, i ns truct ed an a g e n t o f th e D e f e n d a n ts to su rre p tit io u sly v ideo tape the N ew Y o rk Je ts co ac h es a n d p lay ers4 on t he fi el d w i t h the purpos e of i l l egal l yr ecor di ng, c a p tu rin g a n d ste a lin g th e N e w Y o rk Je ts s ig n a ls a n d v isu a l co a c h in g in stru c tio n s. T h e D e f e n d a n ts w er e i n fac ts ubs equent l yfound bythe N at i onal F o o tb a ll L e a g u e (“ N F L ” ) to h a v e im p ro p e rly engage d i n s uch conduc t
. T hi s vi ol at ed the co n tr ac tual ex p ec tat ion s an d ri g h ts of N ew Y o rk J et s t i cket

- hol der s w ho ful l yant i ci pat ed and contr act ed fora t i ckett o obs erve an hone s tm at ch pl ay ed i n compl i ance w i t h al l l aw s , r egul at i ons and N F L rul es. 3 . P lain tiff

s c o n ten d th a t in p u rc h a sin g tick e ts to w at ch the N ew Y or k J et s that , as a mat t erof contr act , t he t i cket s i m pl ythateac h game w i l l be pl ay ed i n acc or dance w i t h N FL rul es and r egul at i ons as w el l as al l appl i cabl e fe der al and sta te la w s. P lain tiff

s c o n ten d th a t D e f

e n d a n ts t or tuous l y[s i c] i nt er fer ed w i t h t hei rcontr actual r el at i ons w i t h t he N ew Y or k J et s i n pur chas i ng the tick e ts. T h e yf

u rth e r c laim th a t D e f

e n d a n ts vi ol at ed the N ew J er s eyC ons um erFr aud A ctand th e N e w J e rs e yD e c e p tiv e B u s in e s s P ra c tic e s A c t. Pl ai nt i ffs al s o cl ai m thatthe D efe ndant s vi ol at ed fede r al and s t at e r acke t eer i ng l aw s byus i ng the N ati o n al F o o tball L ea g u e a s an en terprise to c arry o u t th e ir ill e g a l sc h e m e . B e c a u se th e D e f e n d a n ts h a v e b e e n f

o u n d in o th e r g a m e s to h a v e ill e g a lly us ed vi deo equi pm ent , thi s act i on s eeks damages forN ew Y or k J et s t i cket

- hol der s foral l games p lay ed in G iants stad ium b etw ee n the N ew Y o rk Je ts a n d th e N e w E n g lan d P a trio ts s in c e B ill B el i chi ck bec ame head coa ch i n 2000. ( A 18- A 19. ) M ay ert hen des cr i bed ats om e l ength t he al l eged m i s conductati s s ue her e. H i s acc ount , i n turn, r el i ed hea vi l yon pr es s acc ount s of the Spy gat e s canda l as w el l as “on i nform at i on a n d b e lie f

” a lle g a tio n s . Att h e i rmo s tf

u n d a me n t a l l e v e l , th e v a r i o u s c l a i ms5 al l eged he r e ar os e outof the r epea t ed and s urr ept i t i ous vi ol at i ons of a s peci fi c N FL rul e. T hi s rul e pr ovi des that“‘ no vi deo r ecor di ng devi ces of anyki nd ar e perm i t t ed t o be i n us e i n t he coac hes ’ boot h, on t he fi el d, ori n t he l ockerr oom dur i ng the game’ ” and that“al l vi deo forcoac hi ng purpos es m us tbe s hot fr om l ocat i ons ‘ encl os ed on al l s i des w i t h a r oof overhead. ’ ” ( A 22. ) I n a Sept ember6, 2007 m emora ndum , R ayA nder s on, t he N FL ’ s exec ut i ve vi ce pr es i dentof footbal l oper at i ons , s t at ed th a t “‘ [ v ]id e o tap in g o f

a n ytyp e , inc lu d in g b u t n o t li m ited to tap in g o f a n o p p o n e n t’s o f

f e n siv e o r d e f

e n siv e sig n a ls, is pr ohi bi t ed on the s i del i nes , i n t he coa ches ’ boot h, i n t he l ocker roo m , o r at an yo ther loc ati o n s ac ce ssible to c lub staff m em b ers d u ri n g th e g a m e .’” (I d .) O n Sept ember9, 2007, the J et s and the Patr i ot s pl ay ed the s e a s o n o p e n e r i n G ia n ts S ta d iu m , E a s t R u th e rf o rd , N e w J e rs e y . M ay erpos s es s ed t i cket s and parki ng pas s es t o t hi s game, and the Pat r i ot s ul t i m at el yw on, 38- 14. E SPN
. com t hen r epor t ed thatthe N FL w as i nves t i gat i ng acc us at i ons thatan empl oy ee of the P a trio ts w a s a c tu a llyv id e o tap in g th e sig n a ls g iv e n b yJe ts c o a c h e s a t th is g a m e . S p e c if ica lly , N F L se c u rityre p o rte d ly confi s cat ed a vi deo ca m er a and vi deot ape f r om an empl oy ee dur i ng t he cour s e of the game, and thi s empl oy ee w as acc us ed of aim ing h is cam era at th e Je ts’ d ef en sive co ac h es w h il e the yw ere s e n d in g s ig n a ls o u t to th e te a m ’s p la y e rs o n th e f ie ld
. T hi s w as nott he fi r s tt i m e a publ i c ac cus at i on of che at i ng ordi s hones t yhad bee n m ade a gai ns tthe Patr i ot s . A m an w ea ri n g a P atri o ts cred en ti al w as f o u n d ca rry ing a v ideo ca m era o n th e sid e lin e s a t th e h o m e f ield o f th e G re e n B a yP a c k e rs in N ovember2006. A dm i t t edl y , “[t ] eams a r e al l ow ed t o have a l i m i t ed numberof thei row n vi deogr apher s on t he s i del i ne dur i ng t he game, butt heym us thave a cr edent i al thatauthor i zes them to sh o o t vide o , an d w ea r a y ell o w v est. ” (A 2 1
. ) H o w ev er, t hi s par t i cul ari ndi vi dual evi dent l yl acke d t he pr opercr edent i al and att i r e and w as acc or di ngl yes cor t ed outof the s t adi um by P a c k e rs s e c u ri ty. W i t h r es pectt o the 2007 i nci dent , the Patr i ot s deni ed that th e re w a s a n yv io latio n o f th e N F L ’s r u les . A P a trio ts6 cornerback na m ed El l i s H obbs t ol d t he pr es s thathe w as unw i l l i ng t o bel i eve thathi s t eam had chea t ed and thathe w as s t andi ng byt he t eam and i t s coac hes
. H ow ever , he al s o admi t t ed that, “[ i] f it ’s true , o b v iou sly , w e’re in th e w ron g . ” (Id
. ) B el i chi ck apol ogi zed t o every one af fec t ed fol l ow i ng the confi s cat i on of the vi deot ape. B ut , ata w eekl ypr es s confe r ence on Sept ember12, 2007, he r efus ed t o t ake que s t i ons fr om r epor t er s aboutt he N FL i nves t i gat i on and s t or m ed outof the r o o m. O n S e p tem b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 , “th e N F L f o u n d th e D e f

e n d a n ts gui l t yof vi ol at i ng al l appl i cabl e N FL rul es byengagi ng i n a s ur r ept i t i ous vi deot api ng pr ogr am. ” ( A 22. ) I ti m pos ed the fol l ow i ng s anct i ons : ( 1) the Patr i ot s w er e fi ned $250, 000. 00; ( 2) B e lich ick w a s p e rso n a llyf in e d $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 ; an d (3 ) th e P a trio ts w oul d be s t r i pped of a nyfi r s t
- r ound dr aftpi ck forthe nexty ear if th e tea m re a c h e d th e p layof f s in th e 2 0 0 7 -2 0 0 8 se a so n a n d , if nots o s ucce s s ful , t he t eam w oul d otherw i s e l os e i t s s econd- and t h i r d

- r o u n d p i c k s . Rog e rGoo d e l l , th e c o mmi s s i o n e ro f th e NFL, c h a ra c ter ize d th e w h o le e p iso d e a s “ ‘a c a lcu late d a n d d e lib e ra te a ttem p t to a v o id lo n g sta n d in g ru les d e sig n e d to e n c o u ra g e f a ir pl ayand pr om ot e hones tcompet i t i on on t he pl ay i ng fi el d. ’ ” ( I d. ) H e furt herj us t i fi ed the pena l t i es i m pos ed on the t eam on t he gr ounds t hat“‘ C oach Bel i chi ck notonl ys erves as the hea d coac h butal s o has s ubs t ant i al contr ol overal l as pect s of N ew E ngl and’ s footbal l oper at i ons ” and ther efor e “‘ hi s act i ons and d ec isi o n s are p rop erlyattri b u ted to the c lub
. ’” (Id.) T h e o w n e r o f

th e P a trio ts, R o b e rt K ra f t, ref u se d to comm enton the N FL ’ s s anct i ons , and the N ew Y or k J et s i s s ued a s t a t e me n ts u p p o r t i n g t h e c o mm i s s i o n e ra n d h i s f i n d i n g s . On Sept ember13, 2007, B el i chi ck s t at ed the fol l ow i ng: “‘ O nce a g a in , I ap o lo g ize to th e K ra f t f a m ilya n d e v e ryp e rso n d ire c tly ori ndi r ect l yas s oci at ed w i t h t he N ew E ngl and Patr i ot s forthe e m b a rr a s s m e n t, d is tr a c tio n a n d p e n a lty m ym is ta k e c a u s e d . I al s o apol ogi ze t o Pat r i ot s fans and w oul d l i ke t o t hank them for t h e i rs u p p o r td u r i n g t h e p a s tf e w d a y s a n d th r o u g h o u tmy c a re e r.’” (A 2 3 .) H o w e v e r, h e th e n “ b iza rre ly
. . . atte m p ted to denyr es pons i bi l i t y , s t at i ng: ‘ W e have neverus ed s i del i ne vi deo to o b tain a c o m p e tit iv e a d v a n tag e w h ile th e g a m e w a s in7 pr ogr es s . . . [. ] W i t h t oni ght ’ s r es ol ut i on, I w i l l notbe off er i ng a n yf u rth e r c o m m e n ts o n th is m a tter. W e a re m o v in g o n w ith ou r pr eparat i on s for Su nd ay ’s gam e. ’” ( Id. ) B ut, atl east acc or di ng t o M ay er , J et s t i cket

- hol der s have r efus ed t o “move o n . ” (Id
. ) T he Patr i ot s and B el i chi ck depl oy ed thei rs urr ept i t i ous vi deot api ng pr ogr am duri ng al l ei ghtgames pl ay ed aga i ns tthe Je ts in G ian ts S tad iu m f ro m 2 0 0 0 th ro u g h 2 0 0 7 . B e g in n in g in 2000 w hen B el i chi ck bec ame head coa ch, theycomm ence d an ongoi ng s cheme t o acqui r e the s i gnal s of thei radver s ar i es and t hen mat ch s uch s i gnal s t o t he pl ay s on t he fi el d, i n al l eged viol at i on of the “N F L rul es that ar e partof the t i ckethol ders’ contr actual and/ orquas i contr actual r i ght s . ” ( A 24. ) O n t he ot herhand, J et s fans col l ect i vel ys pentm or e than $61 mi l l i on on t i cket s t o w at ch thes e purpor t edl yhones tand compet i t i ve games betw een the t w o team s. In 2 0 0 0 , M attW alsh , an em p loy ee in the team ’s vi deogr aphydepart m ent , w as hi r ed bythe t eam t o vi deot ape the s i gnal s of opponent s . R el y i ng s peci fi cal l yon s t at ement s m ade byW al s h t o t he N ew Y or k T i m es and U ni t ed St at es Senat or A rle n S p e c ter , M a y e r m a d e a se rie s o f a lleg a tio n s w ith re sp e c t to th is P a trio ts e m p lo y e e . W a lsh c laim e d th a t h e re c e iv e d h is v ideo tapin g instruction s d ir ec tl yfro m E rnie A d am s, B eli ch ick’s ow n s peci al as s i s t ant
. T he purpos e of the vi deot api ng pr ogr am wa s t o c a p tu r e s i g n a l s f o ru s e i n g a me s a g a i n s tth e s a me opponentl at eri n t he s eas on, and the pr ogr am w as l at er e x p a n d e d to in c lu d e tea m s th a t th e P a trio ts c o u ld e n c o u n ter in t he pl ay offs
. T he fi r s ti ns t ance of t api ng occurr ed i n a 2000 pr es e a s o n g a me a g a i n s tt h e T a mp a Ba yBu c c a n e e r s . Wh e n th e two tea m s p layed a g a in in th e re g u lar se a so n o p e n e r, th e P a trio ts appea r ed t o us e the ac qui r ed s i gnal s . W al s h s peci fi cal l yas s ert ed “thatt hi s w as t he fi r s tt i m e he ha d s een qua r t erback D r ew B l eds oe oper at e a ‘ no huddl e’ [off ens e] ‘ w hen noti n a tw om i nut e orhur r ys i tuat i on’ ” and that , w hen he a s ked an unna m ed quar t erback i f the t aped s i gnal s w er e hel pful , the pl ay err epl i ed t hat , “‘ pr obabl y75 percentof the t i m e, T ampa B ayr an the d ef en se w e tho u g h t th eyw ere g o ing to ru n . ’” (A 2 4 -A 2 5
. ) A l t hough W al s h l eftt he vi deot api ng pr ogr am aft erthe 20028 SuperB ow l , “he [ as a Patr i ot s s eas on t i cket

- hol der ] w i t nes s ed Pat r i ot s empl oy ee St eve Sca r necc hi a cont i nue the s ame t api ng pr act i ces i n m ul t i pl e games i n t he 2003, 2004, and 2005 se a so n s.” (A 2 5 .) W a lsh w a s f u rth e r in stru c ted b yth e P a trio ts o rg a n iza tio n to c o n c e a l h is a c tio n s a n d m isre p re se n t h is act i vi t i es i f cha l l enged on the fi el d by : ( 1) i nt ent i onal l ybr eaki ng t he r ed oper at i ng l i ghton the vi deo ca m er a, ( 2) t el l i ng any per s on ques t i oni ng “the us e of a thi r d vi deo ca m er a on the fi el d” t hathe w as fi l m i ng t i ghts hot s orhi ghl i ght s , and ( 3) “i f as ked w hyhe w as notfi l m i ng act i on on t he fi el d, he w as t o s ayhe w as fi l m i ng t he dow n m arker
. ” ( I d. ) Fi nal l y , atthe 2002 A m er i can Footbal l C onfer ence champi ons hi p game agai ns tthe Pi t t s bur gh S tee ler s, W a lsh w a s in stru c ted n o t to w e a r a tea m lo g o w h ile f ilm in g . W al s h’ s at t or ney , M i chae l L evy , l i kew i s e r el eas ed a s t at ementdes cr i bi ng t he t eam’ s m ethod “of s ecur i ng and ty i ng co ac h ing sign als t o p lay s. ” (A 2 6
. ) A s rep o rt ed in the N ew Y o rk Post , t he l aw y erpr ovi ded the fol l ow i ng des cr i pt i on of a vi deot ape made dur i ng an O ct ober7, 2001 game agai ns tthe M i am i D olphi ns: “[I t ] cont ai ns s hot s of M i ami ’ s offe ns i ve coa ches s i g n a l i n g M i a m i ’ s o f

f e n s i v e p l a ye r s , f

o l l o w e d b y a sh o t from the e n d -zo n e c am era o f M iam i’ s o ff en sive p lay , fo ll o w ed b ya sh o t of M iam i’ s offe ns i ve coa ches s i gnal i ng M i ami ’ s offe ns i ve pl ay er s fort he nextpl ay , then edi t ed t o be f o l l o we d b ya s h o to f

th e s u b s e q u e n tM i a mi offe ns i ve pl ay , ” Levyt ol d E SPN
. com. “A nd that p a ttern re p e a ts th ro u g h o u t th e e n tire ta p e , w ith o cc asio n al cu ts t o the s co reb o ard
. ’” (Id. ( cit ati o n o m itted).) C i t i ng agai n t o the N ew Y or k Post , M ay erfur t heral l eged t hatt he N FL w r ongful l ydes t r oy ed the i l l i ci tvi deot apes th e m se lv e s: O t hert apes pr oduced t o t he N FL ( and l at er9 des t r oy ed byor derof C om m i s s i onerR oger G o o d e ll, see i nfr a ) i ncl ude def ens i ve s i gnal s fr om M i ami coac hes i n a game on Sept
. 24, 2000, s i gnal s fr om B i l l s coac hes fr om a N ov. 11, 2001 g a me , s i g n a l s f

r o m Br o wn s c o a c h e s f

r o m a g a me o n D ec . 9 , 2 0 0 1 , tw o tape s o f sig n als fro m S teelers c o a c h e s f

r o m th e 2 0 0 1 AFC Ch a mp i o n s h i p g a me o n Jan
. 2 7 , 2 0 0 2 , an d sign als fro m C h arg ers c o a c h e s f

ro m a g a m e S e p t. 2 9 , 2 0 0 2
. ( I d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. ) W al s h pr ovi ded atl eas tei ghtvi deot apes to th e N F L , w h ile th e P a trio ts lik e w ise f u rn ish e d a t lea st s ix t apes t o t he l eague . T he comm i s s i onercl ai m ed thathe or der ed t he des t ruct i on of the vi deot apes t o pr eventthei rus e bythe P a trio ts, e v e n th o u g h th e N F L a lleg e d lyh a d a leg a l d u tyto pr es erve thes e i t ems pur s uant , i nt eral i a, t o t he Sarbanes

- O xl ey A c t a n d th e N F L ’s o w n a n titr u s t e x e m p tio n . M a y e r th e n m a d e v a rio u s c las s a c tio n a lleg a tio n s in h is a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. A c c o rd in g to th e p lea d in g , h e in ten d e d to s eek the ce r t i fi cat i on of both a nat i onal cl as s and a s t at e s ubcl as s . T he pr opos ed nat i onal cl as s w oul d cons i s tof “[ a] l l N ew Y or k J et s s eas on t i cket

- hol der s and othert i cket

- hol der s w ho pur chas ed t i cket s t o games be tw een the N ew Y or k J et s and the N ew E ngl and Patr i ot s i n G i ant s s t adi um s i nce Bi l l B el i chi ck beca m e the hea d coac h of the N ew E ngl and Patr i ot s i n 2000. ” (A 2 7
. ) T h e su b class w o u ld en co m p ass “ [a ]l l i n d ividu als th at are re sid e n ts o f

th e S tate o f

N e w Je rse ya n d th a t p u rc h a se d tick e ts to w at ch the N ew Y or k J et s pl aythe N ew E ngl and Patr i ot s betw een 20 00 and 20 07 i n G i ants st adium
. ” (I d. ) Th e off i cers , dir ect ors, empl oy ees , l egal r epr es ent at i ves , s ucce s s or s , and as s i gns of D e f e n d a n ts w e re e x p re s s ly ex c lu d e d f ro m b o th p ro p o s e d c la s s e s . M a y e r a d d iti o n a llya d v a n c e d v a rio u s a lleg a tio n s w ith re sp e c t to t h e s p e c i f

i c c l a s s a c t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s o f n u m e r o s i t y, typ i c a l i t y, a d e q u a c y , a n d p re d o m in a n c e a n d s u p e ri o ri ty. M a y e r u lti m a telya lleg e d n in e se p a ra te c o u n ts in h is amended compl ai nt
. H e as s ert ed, i n or der , the fol l ow i ng caus es of ac t i on agai ns tt he Patr i ot s and B el i chi ck: ( 1) t or t i ous i nt er fer ence w i t h contr actual r el at i ons ; ( 2) comm on l aw fr aud;10 ( 3) vi ol at i ons of the N ew J er s eyD ece pt i ve B us i nes s Pr act i ces A ct ; ( 4) vi ol at i ons of N ew J er s ey ’ s r acke t eer i ng s t atut e; ( 5) vi ol at i ons of the R acke t eerI nfl uence d and C orrupt O rg a n iza tio n s A c t (“ R IC O ” ); (6 ) th e in f rin g e m e n t o f

th e rig h ts of t i cket

- hol der s as t hi r d- par t ybenef i ci ar i es ; ( 7) br eac h of i m pl i ed contr actorquas i

- contr act ; and ( 8) vi ol at i ons of the N ew J er s eyC ons um erFr aud A ct( “N J C FA ”)
. Fi nal l y , he adva nced a b re a c h o f

c o n tra c t cla im a g a in st th e N F L o n a c c o u n t o f its d e s tru c tio n o f

th e v id e o ta p e s . M ay ers oughtan ext ens i ve r ange of r el i ef i n hi s amended c o m p lain t, as k in g f

o r: (1 ) a d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n t; (2 ) e q u itab le r el i ef i n t he form of a pr el i m i naryand perm anenti nj unct i on p ro h ib iti n g a n yv id e o tap in g in v io latio n o f N F L ru les a n d b o th s t at e and f

eder al l aw ; ( 3) the aw ar d of s t atut orydamages i n t he form of ( a) “ac tual damages s us t ai ned bythe cus t om er s i n t he am o u n t of

[$ 6 1 , 6 0 0 , 0 0 0
. 0 0 ] fo r th e a m o u n t paid b yN ew Y o rk J et s t i cket

- hol der s t o w at ch ei ghtfr audul entgames be t w een the N ew E ngl and Patr i ot s and the N ew Y or k J et s betw een 2000 a nd 2007” as w el l as ( b) “tr ebl e damages pur s uantt o [R I C O and the N J C FA ] fora t ot al amount of compensa t orydamages of $184, 800, 000. 00; ” ( 4) t he aw ar d of puni t i ve damages ; ( 5) the aw ar d of att or ney s ’ fee s and othercos t s ; and ( 6) the aw ar d of r es t i tut i on, di s gor gement , and al l ot herr el i ef a l l ow ed underthe N J C FA as t o t he N ew J er s eys ub- cl as s . ( A 42. ) M ay erfur t her e x p re ss lya sk e d f

o r a ju rytrial. A ft ert heyw er e s erved w i t h t he amended compl ai nt , the P a trio ts a n d B e lich ick f iled a m o tio n to d ism iss f o r f a ilu re to stat e a claim p u rsua n t t o F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 12 (b) (6)
. T he N F L subsequ entl yfi l ed it s ow n m oti on t o d i sm i ss as w el l
. T he Patr i ot s and B el i chi ck i ncl uded w i t h t hei rm ot i on a cop yof a Jets t i cket s tub from an A ug ust17 , 20 07 gam e against th e M in n e so ta V ik in g s. T h is s tu b sta ted , inte r a lia, th a t “[ t]h is t i cketonl ygr ant s entr yi nt o t he s t adi um and a s pect at ors eatfor t he s peci fi ed N FL game. ” ( SA 4. ) I tadded that“[a ] dm i s s i on m aybe r efus ed ort i ckethol derej ect ed i n t he s ol e di s cr et i on of t he N ew Y or k J et s L L C orN ew J er s eySpor t s & E xpos i t i on A ut hor i t y , s ubj ectt o r efund ( orw i t houtr efund i f the t i cket hol deri s di s or der l yorfai l s t o compl yw i t h t hes e t i ckett erm s or11 anys ecur i t ym eas ur es )
. ” ( I d. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o r ece i ved a br i ef f r om t he J et s as ami cus cur i ae, s uppor t i ng the r es pect i ve m ot i ons t o di s m i s s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tul t i m at el ygr ant ed the m ot i ons t o di s m i s s i n an or derent er ed on M ar ch 23, 2009, pr ovi di ng i t s r eas ons fordoi ng s o i n an ac company i ng m emora ndum opi ni on. I ts peci fi cal l yexpl ai ned thatthe var i ous causes of ac t i on m ustbe d i sm i ssed as a m at t er of l aw becau se M a ye rf a i l e d t o a l l e g e a n y a c t i o n a b l e i n j u r y. III
. I ti s undi s put ed thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tpos s es s ed fe der al q u e stio n , d iv e rsity , an d su p p lem e n tal ju risd ictio n o v e r th is m a tter p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 3 1 , 1 3 3 2 , an d 1 3 6 7 . T h is C our tl i kew i s e has appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. W e e x erc ise d e n o v o rev iew o f a D istri ct C o u rt ’s di s m i s s al underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) fora fa i l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed. See, e. g. , Phi l l i ps v. C ount yof A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 230 ( 3d C i r . 2008)
. W e mustacc ept al l fac tual al l egat i ons i n the compl ai ntas true, cons t rue the c o m p lain t in th e lig h t f

a v o ra b le to th e p lain tiff , an d u lti m a tely det erm i ne w hetherpl ai nt i ff maybe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde rany rea so n ab le read ing o f th e c o m p lai n t. S ee , e.g., id. at2 3 3
. In or dert o w i t hs t and a mot i on t o di s m i s s , “a c om pl ai nt ’ s ‘ [f] actual al l egat i ons m us tbe enough t o r ai s e a r i ghtt o r el i ef a bove the s pecul at i ve l evel
. ’ ” I d. at232 ( quot i ng B el l A t l
. C orp. v. T w om bl y , 550 U
. S. 544, 555 & n. 3 ( 2007) )
. T hi s “r equi r es m or e than l abel s and conc l us i ons , and a f or m ul ai c r eci t at i on of t he el ement s of a c aus e of a ct i on w i l l notdo. ” Tw om bl y , 550 U
. S. at555 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. O n t he contr ary , a courti s not re q u ir e d to a c c e p t le g a l c o n c lu s io n s a lle g e d in th e c o m p la in t. S e e , e .g ., K o s t v . K o z a k ie w ic z , 1 F .3 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). T h e p lea d in g m u st c o n tain su f f icie n t f a c tu a l alle g a tio n s s o a s to s t at e a f aci al l ypl aus i bl e cl ai m forr el i ef. See, e. g. , G el m an v. S tat e F arm M u t. A u to. I n s. C o . , 5 8 3 F
. 3 d 1 8 7 , 1 9 0 (3d C ir
. 2009)
. A cl ai m pos s es s es s uch pl aus i bi l i t y“‘ w hen the pl ai nt i ff pl eads fac tual cont entt hatal l ow s the courtt o dr aw the r eas onabl e i nfer ence t hatthe def endanti s l i abl e forthe m i s conductal l eged. ’ ” I d. at190 ( quot i ng A s hcr oftv. I qbal , 12912 S . C t. 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 4 9 (2 0 0 9 )) . In d e c id in g a R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) m o tio n , a cour tm us tcons i deronl ythe compl ai nt , exhi bi t s at t ache d t o t he c o m p lain t, m a tters o f

p u b lic re c o rd , as w e ll as u n d isp u ted ly authent i c document s i f the compl ai nant ’ s cl ai m s ar e bas ed upon t hes e document s . See, e. g. , Pens i on B enef i tG uar . C orp. v. W h ite C o n s o l. I n d u s ., In c ., 9 9 8 F .2 d 1 1 9 2 , 1 1 9 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). I V. T he D i s t r i ctC our t , w hi l e not i ng thatM ay eral l eged n u m e ro u s th e o rie s o f

liab ili tyin th is c a se , ap p ro p ria telytu rn e d to t he fol l ow i ng di s pos i t i ve ques t i on: namel y , w hetherornothe s t at ed an a ct i onabl e i nj ury( or , i n otherw or ds , a l egal l ypr ot ect ed rig h t o r in ter e st) a risin g o u t o f th e a lleg e d “ d ish o n e st” vi de ot a pi ng pr og r a m unde r t a ke n b ythe Pa t r i ot s a nd the N FL t eam’ s head c oach. I tdoes appea rthatthe var i ous ( and num er ous ) deci s i ons ci t ed bythe D i s t r i ctC our tand the part i es on appea l ar e di s t i ngui s habl e fr om the hi ghl yunus ual ( and eve n uni que) ci r cumst ance s pr es enther e. Si m pl yput , no one i n t he p a s t h a s e v e r b ro u g h t a le g a l a c tio n q u ite lik e th is o n e . H o w e v e r, p a st c a se s d o , at th e v e rylea st, p ro v id e th is C o u rt w ith cert ai n gener al l egal pr i nci pl es es peci al l yr el evantt o t he pr es ent m at t er . T aki ng i nt o acc ountthes e pr i nci pl es , the numer ous ar gum ent s of the part i es on appea l , the r ecor d on appea l , and the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s ow n rul i ng, w e ul t i m at el yconcl ude thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tw as corr ectt o hol d t hatM ay erfai l ed t o s etfor t h a l egal l ycogni zabl e r i ght , i nt er es t , ori nj uryher e. A tbes t , he pos s es s ed nothi ng m or e than a c ont r actual r i ghtt o a s eatfr om w hich t o w at ch an N F L gam e betw een the Jet s and the P at ri ots , and thi s r i ghtw as cl ear l yhonor ed. M or e s peci fi cal l y , w e pr edi ct t h a tt h e Ne w J e r s e yS u p r e me Co u r two u l d r e a c h th e e x a c ts a me le g a l c o n c lu s io n if

it w e re c o n f

ro n te d w ith th is a p p e a l. S e e , e .g ., H o lm es v . K im co R ea ltyC o rp., 5 9 8 F
. 3 d 1 1 5 , 1 1 8 (3d C ir
. 2 0 1 0 ). I ni t i al l y , w e cons i derhow t i cket s t o s por t i ng and other ent er t ai nm entevent s have be en tr eat ed i n t he pas t
. A s the D i s t r i ctC our tr ecogni zed, N ew J er s eyhas gener al l yfol l ow ed aA li cense , forourpurpos es , i s gener al l ydefi ned as “[a ] 1 p e rm iss io n , u su . r e v o c a b le, to c o m m it so m e a c t th a t w o u ld ot herw i s e be unl aw ful ; es p. , an agr eement( no t am o u nt i ng t o a l eas e or p rofi ta pr endr e) thati ti s l aw ful forthe l i cens ee t o ent er th e lice n so r’s lan d to d o so m e a c t th a t w o u ld o th e rw ise b e ill e g a l, s uch as hunt i ng game. ” B l ack’ s L aw D i ct i onary 1 002 ( 9th ed. 2 0 0 9 ).Itapp ears t hat the p l ai nti ff w as ac tuall ya show bu si ness

2 co m p eti tor o f th e de fe n d an ts. S ee G arifine v . M o n m o u th P ark J o c k e yC lu b , 1 4 8 A .2 d 1 , 4 (N .J . 1 9 5 9 ). 13 s o- cal l ed “l i cens e” a ppr oach. I n Shuber tv. N i xon A m us ement 1 Co
. , 8 3 A. 3 6 9 ( N. J
. S u p . Ct
. 1 9 1 2 ) , th e o l d Ne w J e r s e yS u p r e me C our tcons i der ed a t or tact i on fi l ed bya pl ai nt i ff w ho, t ogether w i t h hi s fr i ends , w as ej ect ed fr om a theat ereven though theyhad al r eadyt aken thei rs eat s , i d. at369. I n cons i der i ng thi s act i on, 2 t he courttur ned t o pr i orcas e l aw , es peci al l ythe C our tof E xcheque r ’ s l eadi ng deci s i on i n W ood v. L eadbi t t er , ( 1845) 153 E ng . R ep. 35 1 (E xch
. ). R el y i ng , i nteral i a, on this E ng l i sh deci s i on, t he Shuber tcour tr epea t edl yi ndi cat ed thata t i cket p ro v id e s a p a tr o n w ith n o th in g m o re th a n a re v o c a b le lic e n s e . S h u b e rt, 8 3 A . at 3 6 9 -7 1 . F o r in sta n c e , itq u o ted , w ith a p p ro v a l, t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t ’ s fi ndi ng “that‘ a theat ert i cket i s t o be r egar ded as a mer e l i cens e, forthe r evoca t i on of w hi ch befor e the hol derhas actual l ybeen gi ven hi s s eat , and has t aken i t , t he onl yr emedyi s i n as s um ps i tfora br eac h of contr act
. ’ ” I d. a t 3 7 0 (q u o tin g H o rn e yv . N ix o n , 6 1 A . 1 0 8 8 , 1 0 9 0 (P a . 1 9 0 5 ) )
. W hi l e r efe r r i ng i n pas s i ng t o t he “na tur al j us t i ce ori nj us t i ce” of the d ef en d an t’ s ac ti o n s, the N ew Jerse yS u p rem e C o u rt ul t i m at el yrul ed thatt he w el l

- es t abl i s hed “l i cens e” rul e barr ed th e p lain tiff ’s to rt a c tio n e v e n th o u g h h e h a d a lre a d ytak e n h is s eati n t he theat erbefor e bei ng as ked t o l eave . I d. at371. I tappea r s t hatt hi s “l i cens e” appr oach ha s , fors om e t i m e, been f ol l ow ed thr oughoutthe U ni t ed St at es and i n other comm on l aw j ur i s di ct i ons thr oughoutthe w or l d. Forexampl e, t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t , i n a dec i s i on w r i t t en byJ us t i ce H o lm e s c o n sid e rin g th e e x c lu sio n f ro m a ra c e tra c k o f

a tick e th o ld e r su sp e c ted o f

d ru g g in g a h o rse , cite d w ith a p p ro v a l b o thS p e c if ica lly , the S h u b e rt c o u rt sta ted , inte r a lia, th a t: 3 T h e p o sitio n o f th e d e f e n d a n ts is th a t th e sa le of the t i cket s gave r ise o n lyt o a per s onal l i cens e, 14 L eadbi t t eras w el l as Shuber ti t s el f. M arr one v. W as h. J ockey C l ub of D
. C
. , 227 U
. S. 633, 635 ( 1913)
. I n turn, the curr ent N ew J er s eySupr eme C our tadopt ed the “l i cens e” rul e i n another cas e dea l i ng w i t h t he exc l us i on and expul s i on of a t i cket

- hol di ng patr on fr om a r ace t r ack. I n G ar i fi ne v. M onm out h Par k J ockey C l ub, 148 A
. 2d 1 ( N
. J
. 1959) , the r ace tr ack e xcl uded and expel l ed a pa t r on, w ho had bee n char ged butacqui t t ed of be i ng a bookm aker , as an undes i r abl e, i d. at2. T he pl ai nt i ff a r gued, i nt eral i a, “thatnot w i t hs t andi ng the hol di ng of the form er Supr eme C our ti n [Shuber t ] , the oper at orof a l i cens ed r ace tr ack sh o u ld n o t h a v e th e c o m m o n -la w rig h t to e x c lu d e o r e x p e l a patr on w i t houtr eas onabl e ca us e. ” I d. A ft era thor ough d isc u ss io n , inc lu d in g su m m a rie s o f b o th L e a d b itt e r a n d S h u b e rt, N ew J er s ey ’ s hi ghes tcour tr ej ect ed thi s at t ack on the “c om m onl aw r i ghtof r ace t r ack ope r at or s t o excl ude s us pect ed u n d esirab les. ” Id
. at 6. Itn o ted, i n ter ali a, th at th e p lai n ti ff ’s compl ai nt“does notques t i on the def endant ’ s good fai t h or s ound purpos es nordoes i tpr es entanycount ervai l i ng c i r c u m s t a n c e s o ra n y u r g e n tc o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f j u s t i c e o rp o l i c y” in d ic a tin g th e n e e d to d e p a rt f ro m th e g e n e ra l ru le . Id
. A l t hough i tdi d notus e the s peci fi c t erm “l i cens e, ” the ti ck et stu b p rov ided b ythe P atri o ts ne v erthe less ap p ea rs c o n sis ten t w ith th is tra d iti o n a l ap p ro a c h . F o r e x a m p le, it unambi guous l ys t at ed that“[t ] hi s t i cketonl ygr ant s entr yi nt o t he s t adi um and a s pect at ors eatforthe s peci fi ed N FL game. ” (S A 4
. ) T h e stu b fu rth er m ad e c lear tha t th e Je ts an d the o w n ers o f th e sta d iu m re tain so le d isc re tio n to re f u se a d m iss io n o r to ej ecta t i cket

- hol der
. A dm i t t edl y , the Shuber tcour ti n par t i cul ar m ade r epea t ed r efe r ence s t o t he exi s t ence of a c l ai m forbr eac h o f c o n tr ac t. S ee S h u b ert, 8 3 A
. at 36 9 -71
. H o w ev er, i t app ea rs t hatt he courtw as onl yr efe r r i ng t o t he patr on’ s r i ghtt o obt ai n a r efund of

t he t i cketpr i ce ( and r el at ed expe ns es ) beca us e the venue e xer ci s ed i t s r i ghtt o denyentr yorexpel the patr on. 3re v o c a b le a t a n y tim e , a n d w h o se re v o c a tio n w o u ld confe rno r i ght of ac t i on, exce ptforthe moneypai d, w i t h s uch i nci dent al damages as w oul d ar i s e fr om t he expe ns e and i nconveni ence of goi ng t o t he th e a te r t o n o p u rp o s e . . . .

. . . .

. . . . It w a s h e ld th a t p lain tiff m ig h t re c o v e r in contr actt he pr i ce of

hi s t i cketand al l l egal damages s us t ai ned byt he br eac h of the contr acti m pl i ed by th e s a le a n d d e liv e ry o f th e tic k e t . . . . Shuber t , 83 A
. at369- 70. 15 G i ven thatM ay erw as neverbarr ed orexpel l ed fr om anygame at G ian ts S tad iu m , m u c h m o re is n e e d e d to e sta b lish a c o g n iza b le rig h t, i n ter e st, o r in

ju ryth a n th e se k in d s o f in a p p o site s ta te m e n ts
. O n t he otherhand, i ti s al s o t rue thatthe w hol e tr adi t i onal appr oach, gener al l yperm i t t i ng patr ons t o be exc l uded or expel l ed w i t houtcaus e, has been s ubj ect ed t o r athers er i ous at t ack. E ven as ear l yas 1959, the G ar i fi ne courtacknow l edged s om e of thi s cr i t i ci s m , not i ng, i nt eral i a, thatthe C our tof A ppeal of Engl and and W al es actual l yr ej ect ed the pr i orhol di ng in L ea d b itter. G arifine , 1 4 8 A
. 2 d at 3 (c it ing H u rstv . P ictu re T heatr es , [1915] 1 K
. B
. 1 ( A
. C
. 1914) )
. M or e r ece nt l y , the N ew J er s eySupr eme C our tvi gor ous l yat t acke d t he w hol e not i on of an unfe t t er ed r i ghtt o excl ude orexpel i n a ca s e i nvol vi ng a cas i no’ s deci s i on t o excl ude a pa t r on fr om i t s bl ackj ack t abl es b ec au se o f h is card co u n ti n g str ateg y . In U ston v . R eso rt s Int’l H o tel, In c ., 4 4 5 A .2 d 3 7 0 (N .J. 1 9 8 2 ), th e c o u rt u lti m a telyh e ld t hatt he s t at e’ s gami ng s t atut e gi ves the C as i no C ont r ol C om m i s s i on excl us i ve author i t yt o s etthe rul es and met hods of lice n se d c a sin o g a m e s a n d th a t th e c a sin o w a s th e re b ysta tu to rily pr ecl uded fr om excl udi ng the gambl er . I d. at371. H ow ever , the U sto n c o u rt th e n a ttac k e d a t so m e len g th th e “ c u rre n t m a jo rity A m e ric a n ru le” th a t an a m u se m e n t p lac e o w n e r h a s “ a n a b so lu te rig h t ar b itrar ilyto e

jec t o r e x c lu d e a n yp e rso n c o n sis ten t w ith16 s ta te a n d f

e d e ra l c iv il r ig h ts la w s .” Id . a t 3 7 4 (c ita tio n o m itte d ). Fora var i etyof r eas ons ( i ncl udi ng s pecul at i on thatthe rul e w as dev el op ed an d m ai ntai ned as a w ayt o p rot ectsegregat i on i st act i vi t i es ) , t he courtadamant l yr ej ect ed the maj or i t yrul e i n favor o f a n a p p ro a c h re c o g n izin g th e p a tro n ’s r ig h t to “ re a so n a b le acc es s . ” I d. at373- 75. T h e sta tu s o f

th e “ lice n se ” ru le in N e w Je rse yw ith r es pectt o t he r i ghtof an a m us ementpl ace ow nert o baror excl ude a pa t r on s t i l l appea r s uns ett l ed. I n y etanotherr ace tr ack cas e, t he N ew J er s eySupr eme C our texpr es s l ychar act er i zed the di s cus s i on i n U s t on r egar di ng the rul e as di ct a. M ar zocc a v. Fer one, 461 A
. 2d 1133, 1137 ( N
. J
. 1983)
. I n M ar zocc a, the cour tconcl uded thatt hi s di ct a di d notappl yt o t he exc l us i on of a h o rse o w n er a n d h is ho rse f rom the trac k ’s race s, an d itthere fo re r efr ai ned fr om deci di ng w hetherthe ca s i no deci s i on overrul ed G ar i fi ne s ub s i l ent i o. I d. at1134, 1137. O n t he otherhand, the M ar zocc a courtdi d fur t her“l i m i tthe comm on l aw doctr i ne by p ro s c ri b in g e x c lu s io n s th a t v io la te p u b lic p o lic y .” Id . a t 1 1 3 7
. A ft ernot i ng t hatt he pl ai nt i ff di s cl ai m ed the exi s t ence of any expr es s ori m pl i ed contr actw i t h t he r ace tr ack, the N ew J er s ey Supr eme C our tul t i m at el yfound thatno s uch publ i c pol i cy c o n c e rn s w e re im p lic a te d . Id . a t 1 1 3 7 -3 8
. W e neve r t hel es s concl ude thatnei t herthe U s t on rul i ng nors i m i l ardeci s i ons have a nyr eal r el evanc e her e. A s al r eady not ed, w e ar e notconce r ned i n t hi s cas e w i t h a patr on excl uded orej ect ed fr om t he pr emi s es . I n fac t , i tw as the not i on of a per s on’ s r i ghtt o “r eas onabl e ac ces s ” thats erved as the f u n d a m e n t a l b a s i s f

o rt h e r e a s o n i n g o f

th e c o u r ti n U s t o n . We t her efor e nee d not( and do not ) have t o pr edi cthow the N ew Jerse yS u p rem e C o u rtw o u ld tr ea t an e jecti o n ca se li k e S h u b ert a t th is tim e . H o w e v e r, th e v a rio u s g e n e ra l p rin c ip les sta ted in s uch ca s es as Shuber t , U s t on, and M ar zocc a s t i l l gui de our c o n sid e ra tio n o f

m o re re c e n t ca se law a risin g o u t o f th e sp e c if

ic s p o rt s c o n te x t. C our t s acr os s t he countr yhave r ece nt l ys t ruggl ed t o deal w i t h l i t i gat i on ar i s i ng outof the oft en compl i cat ed t i cket a rra n g e m e n ts b e tw e e n tea m s a n d th e ir f a n s. S e a so n tick e t-17 hol der s acc or di ngl yhave s ued t eams, w i t h vary i ng degr ees of su c c e ss , cla im in g th a t so m e a c tio n (e .g ., m o v in g th e tea m itse lf to a n o th e r c ity ) v io late d e ith e r th e ir re n e w a l rig h ts o r o th e r rig h ts re la te d to th e irs ta tu s a s s e a s o n tic k e t- h o ld e rs . S e e , e .g ., O s hi ns kyv. N
. Y
. Footbal l G i ant s , I nc. , C i vi l A ct i on N o. 09- cv1 1 8 6 (P G S ), 2 0 0 9 W L 4 1 2 0 2 3 7 , * 4 -*1 0 (D
. N
. J. N o v . 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 ); B r ot her s on v. Pr of’ l B as ketbal l C l ub, L L C , 604 F. Supp. 2d 1 2 7 6 , 1 2 8 3

- 9 6 ( D. W a s h
. 2 0 0 9 ) ; Ch a rp e n t i e rv . L. A. Ra ms F o o tb a l l Co
. , 7 5 Ca l
. Ap p . 4 t h 3 0 1 , 3 0 8

- 1 6 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ; M i a mi D ol phi ns , L t d. v. G enden & B ach, P. A
. , 545 So. 2d 294, 295- 96 (Fl a. D i st
. C t
. A pp . 19 89 ) ( per curi am ); S kalbani a v. S i m m on s, 4 4 3 N .E .2 d 3 5 2 , 3 5 6 -6 3 (In d . C t. A p p . 1 9 8 2 ); W ich ita S tate U ni v. I nt er col l egi at e A t hl et i c A s s ’ n v. M arr s , 28 P. 3d 401, 402- 04 ( K an. C t
. A pp. 2001) ( percur i am); Y ar de M et al s , I nc. v. N ew E ng l and P at ri ots L t d. P ’s hip, 83 4 N
. E
. 2d 12 33 , 12 35 -38 (M ass. A pp. C t
. 2005) ; St r aus s v. L ong I s l and Spor t s , I nc. , 401 N
. Y
. S
. 2d 23 3, 23 5-38 (A pp . D i v. 19 78 ); B i ckettv. B uff al o B i l l s, I nc. , 472 N
. Y
. S. 2d 245, 247- 48 ( Sup. C t
. 1983) ; B ederv. C l evel and B r ow ns , I nc. , 717 N
. E
. 2d 716, 719- 23 ( O hi o C t
. A pp. 1 9 9 8 ) ; St e r n v . Cl e v e l a n d Br o wns Fo o tb a l l Cl u b , I n c . , No. 9 5
- L196, 1996 W L 761163, at*5- *6 ( O hi o C t
. A pp. D ece m ber20, 1996)
. Si m i l ar l y , ot hercour t s have a ddr es s ed the cl os el yr el at ed ques t i on of w hethers uch al l eged r enew al r i ght s m aybe s ol d by t he bankrupt cyt rus t ee. See, e. g. , A bel e v. Phoeni x Suns Lt d. P’ s hi p ( I n r e H arr el l ) , 73 F. 3d 218, 219- 20 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( per c u ria m ); G ro ss m a n v . B o sto n R e d S o x B a se b a ll C lu b L td . P ’sh ip (In re P lat t) , 2 9 2 B
. R
. 1 2 , 1 7 -18 (B an k r. D
. M ass. 20 0 3 ); In re L i e b ma n , 2 0 8 B. R. 3 8 , 3 9

- 4 1 ( Ba n k r . N. D. I l l
. 1 9 9 7 ) ; I n r e I
. D. C r ai g Ser v. C orp. , 138 B
. R
. 490, 493- 502 ( B ankr
. W
. D
. Pa. 1 9 9 2 ). N evert hel es s , t he exi s t i ng “s eas on t i cket ” ca s e l aw ul t i m at el ydoes notr eal l yhel p M ay er . Sever al of thes e ca s es have a ctual l yi ndi cat ed thatther e maybe di ffe r entand di s t i nct ki nds of r i ght s ori nt er es t s i m pl i cat ed i n t he s eas on t i cket cont ext
. Fori ns t ance , t he bankrupt cycour ti n C r ai g s t at ed “that th e c o n c lu sio n d o e s n o t f o llo w th a t, be c a u se e a c h sin g le tic k e t is a revocab l e l i cense, [t he team ] can ei t her den yT rust ee’s request t o t r ans ferhi s s eas on t i ckets t atus orr efus e t o r ecogni ze that s t atus i n hi s t r ans fer ees . ” C r ai g, 138 B
. R
. at494. O n t he18 c o n t r a r y , t h e Cr a i g c o u r te x p r e s s l yr e c o g n i z e d th a t“ [ t ] h e g a me ti ck ets th em selv es a n d the righ t t o ren ew the s ea so n ti ck ets are t w o s epar at e and di s t i ncti nt er es t s of thi s es t at e. ” I d. W e ar e not conce r ned her e w i t h t he r el at i vel ym or e s t r ai ght

- forw ar d i s s ue of re n e w a l rig h ts . R ed u ce d to it s ess en ce , the c u rren t app ea l bef o re us i s conce r ned w i t h t he al l eged e xi s t ence of a ve r ys peci fi c but v e ryd if f e re n t an d u n u su a l rig h t: n a m e ly , the rig h t o f a tick e thol dert o s ee a n “hones t ” game pl ay ed i n compl i ance w i t h t he f u n d a m e n tal ru les o f

th e N F L itse lf

(w h ich w a s th e n a lleg e d ly deni ed t o M ay erand hi s fel l ow t i cket

- hol der s beca us e of the se c re t an d ill icit v id e o tap in g p ro g ra m u n d e rta k e n b yth e P a trio ts a n d B e lic h ic k ). A lth o u g h th e f

a c tu a l circ u m sta n c e s a n d c laim s b e f o re th is C our tappea rt o be r atheruni que, s ever al cour t s have a ddr es s ed r el at i vel ys i m i l art heor i es of l i abi l i t yw i t h r es pectt o t he r el at ed i s s ues of al l eged poorper form ance and rul e vi ol at i ons . T he D istric t C o u rt itse lf

c ited to so m e o f

th e se d e c isio n s, a n d it s peci fi cal l yfocus ed on tw o of them: B ow er s v. Feder at i on Intern ati o n ale d e l’A u tom o b il e, 48 9 F
. 3 d 3 1 6 (7th C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ), and C as t i l l o v. T y s on, 701 N
. Y
. S. 2d 423 ( A pp. D i v. 2000) ( m em. deci s i on)
. B ot h of thes e rul i ngs pr ovi de cl ears uppor tfor th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f M a y e r’s c o m p lain t. T he B ow er s l i t i gat i on ar os e outof a Form ul a O ne ca rr ace in In d ian a p o lis, w h e re f o u rte e n o f

th e o rig in a l tw e n tyc a rs d id notpar t i ci pat e bec aus e a s er i ous t i r e fl aw m ade thei rt i r es dan gerous t o u se atfull speed o n o ne p artof the t rack. B ow ers , 489 F. 3d at319. T he ent i r e hea t ed af fai rw as dubbed “I ndy gat e. ” I d. at320. D i s appoi nt ed fa ns s ued, s eeki ng the expens es t heyhad i ncurr ed t o att end the r ace , and al l egi ng, i nt er al i a, t hatt he For m ul a O ne r aci ng rul es r equi r e atl eas ttw el ve c a rs to p a rticip a te in a n yra c e . Id . at 3 2 0 -2 1 . T h e S e v e n th C i r cui taff

i r m ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of the var i ous cl ai m s advanc ed byt he pl ai nt i ffs
. I d. at320- 25. O f p arti cu lar si g n ifi ca n ce h ere , the a p p ell ate c o u rt in iti a llysta ted th a t an yb re a c h o f c o n tra c t cla im “ a rg u a b lysh o u ld fai l beca us e I M S [t he r ace tr ack hos t i ng the eve nt ] pr om i s ed onl yt o admi tt he pl ai nt i ffs t o t he r ace gr ounds on t he day s of the19 gr and pr i x. ” I d. at321. I tw enton t o s t at e the fol l ow i ng: W hil e w e are unaw are of anyIndi ana ca se addr es s i ng t he natur e of a contr actform ed bythe s al e of a n admi s s i on t i cket , cf. [Skal bani a, 443 N
. E
. 2d at352] ( addr es s i ng a cl as s cert i fi cat i on ques t i on i n a br eac h of contr actact i on bys eas on t i ckethol der s agai ns ta hocke yfr anchi s e, but expl i ci t l yr es ervi ng the mer i t s ) , m os ts t at es agr ee t hatt he s el l ercontr act s onl yt o admi tthe pl ai nt i ff t o i t s p r o p e r t y a ta g i v e n t i m e . T h e p l a i n t i f f b u ys th e tick e t, of

c o u rse , in o rd e r to se e a n e v e n t th a t is schedu l ed to occu r on t he ti cket- sel l er’ s ground s, butt he s el l erdoes notcontr actt o pr ovi de the s pect acl e, onl yt o l i cens e the pl ai nt i ff t o ent erand “vi ew w hat evereventtr ans pi r e[s ]
. ” [Cast i l l o, 701 N .Y .S .2 d a t 4 2 3 ]. Id . (o th e r c itatio n s o m itt e d ). N o tin g th a t o n e c e rta in lyc o u ld contr actt o pr ovi de a s pect acl e, the B ow er s cour tques t i oned w hy an exhi bi t orl i ke the r ace tr ack he r e w oul d do s o gi ven i t s l ack of c o n tr o l o v e r t h e p e rf

o rm e rs a n d th e irs c h e d u le d p e rf o rm a n c e s . I d. Fur t herm or e, a patr on “coul d r eas onabl ydeci de t o do w i t houta contr actual r i ghtt o t he s pect acl e i t s el f, trus t i ng thatthe exhi bi t orw i l l w or k w i t h t he per form er s t o ens ur e thatthe sp e c tac le g o e s o f

f les t b o th d e v e lo p a b a d re p u tatio n th a t co u ld damage t hei rfutur e bus i nes s . ” I d. T he Seventh C i r cui tthen not ed thatFor m ul a O ne r aci ng has s truggl ed t o t ake r ooti n t he U n it ed S tat es, th at th e e ff ec ts of Ind y g ate o n the s p o rt ’s r eput at i on w as a s er i ous conce r n forevery one i nvol ved, and that t her e w as s pecul at i on t hatthe s por tm i ghtneverhol d a r ace at t he tr ack a gai n. I d. A ct i ng outof an a bundance of ca ut i on beca us e of the a b se n c e o f

In d ian a c a se law o n p o in t, th e S e v e n th C irc u it ul t i m at el ypurpor t edl yr es t ed i t s rul i ng on ot hergr ounds
. I d. at 32 1-25. I tt herebyassum ed thatthe p l ai nti ffs did i n fac tpo sses s a contr actual r i ghtt o a “r egul at i on For m ul a O ne r ace ” as w el l as a r i ght“t o have the r ace s t ew ar ds pr oper l yi nt erpr etthe appl i cabl e r egul at i ons on the s pot
. ” I d. at321 B ut , among ot her20 t hi ngs , t he appe l l at e courtfound thata s i x- carr ace w as not a c tu a llyp ro h ib ited o r o th e rw ise n o n se n sic a l u n d e r th e F o rm u la O n e ru les . Id . at 3 2 2 . A c c o rd in g ly , the re w a s n o re a so n to cl ai m , “as t he pl ai nt i ffs i n al l s er i ous nes s do, thatno r ace occurr ed. ” I d. Fur t herm or e, the courtfur t herdi s cus s ed the li m it ed sco p e o f th e u n d erly ing ti ck et or li ce n se. Itthere fo re not ed thata s por t i ng cont es ti s noti nval i dat ed mer el ybeca us e of a pl ay er ’ s pooreff

or t
. I d. I ns ofaras pl ai nt i ffs themsel ves r ece i ved a “ r egul at i on r ace , ” “theyadmi tthattheyhad no add i t i on al ri gh tt o a race t hat w as exc i t i ngordr i ver s that compet ed w e ll. ” I d. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. I n di s cus s i ng the pr om i s s or yes t oppel cl ai m , the courtl i kew i s e obs erved that num er ous fac t or s , r angi ng fr om a dr i ver ’ s s udden i l l nes s t o an a c c id e n t sh ip p in g a c a r to th e tra c k , co u ld p re v e n t a f u ll compl ementof ca r s fr om r aci ng ata part i cul arl ocat i on on a par t i cul arday
. I d. at324. Q u o ted b yth e B o w e rs c o u rt, th e N e w Y o rk A p p e llate D i vi s i on i n C as t i l l o confr ont ed a s eemi ngl yuni que s i tuat i on of its o w n . T h e p lain tiff

s s o u g h t a r e f

u n d o f th e m o n e yth e yp a id to s ee a boxi ng m at ch af

t erone of the boxer s , M i ke Ty s on, w as di s qual i fi ed forbi t i ng hi s opponent ’ s ear . C as t i l l o, 701 N
. Y
. S. 2d at424. I nvoki ng ( l i ke M ay erhi m s el f) a l ong l i s tof leg a l th e o rie s, th e p lain tiff s “ c laim th a t th e yw e re e n tit led to vi ew a ‘ l egi t i m at e hea vyw ei ghtt i t l e fi ght ’ fought‘ i n acc or dance w i t h t he appl i cabl e rul es and r egul at i ons ’ of the governi ng boxi ng comm i s s i on. ” I d. B utthe A ppel l at e D i vi s i on uphel d t he t r i al cour t ’ s di s m i s s al of the compl ai ntI d. at424- 25. A m ong ot hert hi ngs , i tnot ed thatther e w as nothi ng i n anycontr act pr om i s i ng a fi ghtt hatdi d notend i n a di s qual i fi cat i on. I d. at 424. O n t he contr ary , t he rul es themsel ves “pr ovi de for di s qual i fi cat i on and i ti s a pos s i bi l i t ythata fi ghtfan c an reas on ablyexp ect
. ” Id. In speci fi cal l yrej ect i ng the u njust enr i chmentcl ai m , t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on r eas oned “that pl ai nt i ffs r ece i ved w hattheypai d for , namel y , ‘ t he r i ghtt o vi ew w hat evereventt r ans pi r ed. ’ ” I d. at425. A s h ig h lig h ted b yth e D istric t C o u rt itse lf a s w e ll as b o th t he Seventh C i r cui tand the N ew Y or k A ppel l at e D i vi s i on, n u m e ro u s o th e r d e c isio n s p ro v id e y e t f u rth e r su p p o rt f

o r th isO t hercour t s have made s i m i l ars t at ement s as t o the 4 ab sen ce o f a ca u se o f a cti o n arisi n g o u t o f b a d p erf o rm an ce o r, m o re general l y , t he subj ect i ve ex pectat i on s of t he ti cket- ho l ders. See, e. g. , B r other s on, 604 F. Supp. 2d at129 6 ( “Pl ai nt i ffs m ay have e nj oy ed Soni cs games l es s as i tbeca m e more li k elythatthe t eam w ou l d leave S eat t l e atthe en d of the seas on , bu tthat i s atbest t he s or tof m ent al i nj ur yt hat t he [W as hi ngt on cons um erpr ot ect i on s t atut e] does notr ecogni ze. ”) ; C harpent i er , 75 C al
. A pp. 4th at314 (re jec tin g c la im o f

b re a c h o f

c o v e n a n t o f

g o o d f a ith a n d f

a ir deal i ng beca us e “pl ai nt i ff di d notbuythe r i ghtt o w at ch a good t eam or t o have enl i ght ened ( i n hi s opi ni on) m anage m entdeci s i ons m ade” ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ) ; Str a u s s , 4 0 1 N. Y. S. 2d at235- 38 ( fi ndi ng cl as s act i on w as notappr opr i at e w here season t i cket

- hol derfi l ed s ui tagai ns tN ew Y or k N et s beca us e t he t eam tr aded J ul i us E r vi ng t o t he Phi l adel phi a 76er s); B i ckett , 472 N
. Y
. S. 2d at248 ( “O b v ious l y , ‘ di m i ni s hed qual i t y ’ l i es i n t he ey es of the behol der
. ”) ; B eder , 717 N
. E
. 2d at 725 ( “That t h e B r ow ns per form ed poor l yaft erthe announc ed move t o B al t i m or e ca nnot se rv e a s a b a sis f

ro m w h ich to f

in d th a t th e B ro w n s b re a c h e d th e ir contr actw i t h s eas on t i cket hol der s . T o al l ow r ecove r yunders uch a theoryw oul d enabl e anyt i ckethol dernots at i sfied w i t h t he per form ance of w hat ever ent ert ai nm ent t he t i cket pr ocur ed t o s eek a re f u n d f o r s u c h a s u b

je c tiv e a n d u n re a s o n a b le re s p o n s e .” ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) ) ; S t e r n , 1 9 9 6 W L 7 6 1 1 6 3 , a t* 6 ( “ A d d i t i o n a l l y, to th e e x ten t th a t ap p e llan t so u g h t a r e f u n d f o r h is 1 9 9 5 tick e ts bas ed on the poorper form ance by t he t eam aft ert he N ovember6, 1996 announce m ent [of i t s r el ocat i on] , w e r efus e t o r ecogni ze s uch a c au se o f a cti o n . ”). 21 r eas oni ng. Fori ns t ance , the Seventh C i r cui ts t at ed the fol l ow i ng, admi t t edl yi n a ca s e i nvol vi ng a debtcol l ect i on arr angement : “Thatt he C hi cago Cubs turn outt o be the doorm at of the N at i onal L eague w oul d notent i t l e the t i ckethol dert o a ref u n d fo r th e re m ainin g g am es, an ym o re tha n the s tar t en o r’s l aryngi t i s ent i t l es t he oper a goert o a r efund w hen the under s tudy ta k e s o v e r t h e ro le .” S e k o A irF re ig h t, I n c . v . T ra n s w o rl d S y s ., Inc
. , 2 2 F
. 3 d 7 7 3 , 7 7 4 (7th C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ). O n the c o n tr ary , the f an ’s r emedyw oul d be t o “hea d s out h forC om i s keyPar k and the W h i t e S o x . ” I d
. W e b e l i e v e th a tth e Ne w J e r s e yS u p r e me

422 C our tw oul d fol l ow t he r eas oni ng adopt ed byboth t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt a s w e ll a s b yth e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e c a s e la w . T h e D istric t C o u rt, i n tu rn , p ro p e rlya p p lied th is r eas oni ng i n t he pr es entci r cumst ance s . M ay erpos s es s ed ei t her a l i cens e or , atbes t , a contr actual r i ghtt o ent erG i ant s St adi um a n d to h a v e a se a t f

ro m w h ich to w a tch a p ro f e ss io n a l f

o o tb a ll g a m e . In th e c lea r la n g u a g e o f th e tick e t stu b , “[ t]h is tick e t o n ly gr ant s entr yi nt o t he s t adi um and a s pect at ors eatforthe sp e c if ied N F L g a m e .” (S A 4 .) M a y e r a c tu a llyw a s a llo w e d to en ter th e stad ium an d w itn esse d the “ sp ec ifi ed N F L g am e[ s]” b e tw e e n th e Je ts a n d P a trio ts. H e th e re b ysu f f e re d n o c o g n iza b le in ju ry to a le g a lly p ro te c te d ri g h t o r i n te re s t. A cc o rdin g ly , w e n ee d n o t, an d d o n o t dec ide, w h ethe r a t i cket

- hol derpos s es s es nothi ng m or e than a l i cens e t o ent erand vi ew w hat everevent , i f any , happens t o t r ans pi r e. H er e, M ay er u n d e n i a b l ys a w fo o tb a llgames pl ay ed bytw o NFL tea m s. T h is t her efor e i s nota ca s e w her e, forexampl e, the game orgames w er e ca ncel l ed, s t r i ke r epl ace m entpl ay er s w er e us ed, orthe pr ofes s i onal footbal l t eams themsel ves di d s om ethi ng nons ens i cal orabs ur d, s uch as deci di ng t o pl aybas ketbal l
. See, e. g. , B ow er s , 489 F. 3d at322 ( “B ut , w hi l e a s i x- carr ace under t he R egul at i ons m aybe l es s r i ch, i nt er es t i ng orchal l engi ng than a tw el ve- carr ace , i ti s notpr ohi bi t ed ornons ens i cal underthe ru les (lik e a so c c e r m a tch b e tw e e n th re e tea m s o r a b a sk e tb a ll t eam get t i ng a fi r s tdow n)
. ”) ; M i ami D ol phi ns , 545 So. 2d at295- 96 ( uphol di ng enfor cementof fe e aba t ementpr ovi s i on i n cl ub s eatl i cens e agr eementbeca us e M i ami D ol phi ns us ed r epl ace m entpl ay er s dur i ng s t r i ke) ; Skal bani a, 443 N
. E
. 2d at 35 4-63 (affi rm i ng cert i fi cat i on of season t i cket- ho l der cl ass w h ere Ind iana R ac ers d id n o t fi n ish se aso n b ec au se o f tea m ’s bus i nes s col l aps e) ; B i ckett , 472 N
. Y
. S. 2d at882- 84 ( r ej ect i ng cl ai m s ar i s i ng outof ca ncel l at i on of games byB uffa l o B i l l s due to stri k e). Fur t herm or e, w e do r ecogni ze thatM ay eral l eged thathe w a s th e v ictim , n o t o f

m e re p o o r p e rf

o rm a n c e b ya tea m o r its p layers , b u t o f

a tea m ’s o n g o in g a c ts o f d ish o n e styo r c h e a tin g in v iolati o n o f th e e x p ress ru les o f th e g am e. N ev erthe less, there23 ar e anynum berof oft en compl i cat ed rul es and s t andar ds a p p lic a b le to a v a ri e ty o f s p o rt s , in c lu d in g p ro f

e s s io n a l f

o o tb a ll. It a p p e a rs u n c o n tes ted th a t p layers o f ten c o m m it i n ten tio n a l ru le i nfr act i ons i n or dert o obt ai n an adva nt age ove rthe cour s e of the g a m e . F o r in sta n c e , a f o o tb a ll p layer m a yp u rp o se f u llyc o m m it pas s i nt er fer ence ora “de l ayof game. ” Such i nfr act i ons , i f not c a l l e d b yt h e r e f

e r e e s , ma ye v e n c h a n g e th e o u t c o me o f th e g a me i t s el f. T her e ar e al s o rul es governi ng the off

- fi el d conductof the foo tball t eam , such as sal ary“caps” an d the prohibi t i on against “t amper i ng” w i t h t he empl oy er - empl oy ee r el at i ons hi ps betw een anothert eam and i t s pl ay er s and coa ches
. M ay erfur t herdoes notappea rt o cont es tt he fa ctthata t eam i s evi dent l yperm i t t ed b yth e ru les to e n g a g e in a w id e v a rie tyo f a rg u a b ly“ d ish o n e st” conductt o uncoveran opponent ’ s s i gnal s . Forexampl e, a t eam is a p p a re n tlyf

re e to tak e a d v a n tag e o f th e k n o w led g e th a t a n e w lyh ire d p layer o r c o a c h tak e s w ith h im a f ter lea v in g h is form ert eam, and i tm ayeven ha ve per s onnel on t he s i del i nes w ho t r yt o pi ck up the oppos i ng t eam’ s s i gnal s w i t h t he as s i s t ance of l i p- r eadi ng, bi nocul ar s , not e- t aki ng, and other devi ces . I n addi t i on, even M ay eracknow l edged i n hi s amended compl ai ntt hat“[t ] eams a r e al l ow ed t o have a l i m i t ed numberof t hei row n vi deogr apher s on t he s i del i ne dur i ng the game. ” (A 2 1
. ) I n fac t , t he N FL ’ s ow n comm i s s i oner( l i ke the boxi ng o f f icia ls in C a stillo a n d th e v a rio u s p a rties in B o w e rs) d id ul t i m at el yt ake a ct i on her e. H e found thatthe Patr i ot s and B el i chick w ere gui l t yof v i olat i ng the ap pli cable N F L rul es, i m pos ed s anct i ons i n t he form of fi nes and the l os s of dr aft picks, and rather harshl ycharact eri zed the w ho l e epis od e as a c a lcu late d a ttem p t to a v o id w e ll-es tab lish e d ru les d e sig n e d to e n c o u ra g e f

a ir p lay an d h o n e st c o m p e tit io n . A t lea st in th is s peci fi c cont ext , i ti s notthe r ol e of j udges and j ur i es t o be se c o n d -g u e ss in g th e d e c isio n tak e n b ya p ro f e ss io n a l sp o rts l eagu e pu rport edlyenfo rci ng i t s o wn ru les . In f a c t, w e g e n e ra lly lac k th e k n o w led g e , ex p e rie n c e , an d to o ls in w h ich to e n g a g e in s uch an i nqui r y . Fori ns t ance , ther e appe art o be no r eal sta n d a rd s o r c riter ia th a t a le g a l d e c isio n -m a k e r m a yu se to det erm i ne w hen a pa r t i cul arrul e vi ol at i on gi ves r i s e t o an act i onabl e cl ai m ors houl d i ns t ead be acc ept ed as a us ual and24 expec t ed partof the game. A tthe veryl eas t , a rul i ng i n favorof M a y e r c o u ld lea d to o th e r d isa p p o in ted f a n s f ili n g law su its b e c a u se o f

“ a b lo w n c a ll” th a t ap p a re n tlyc a u se d th e ir tea m to l os e oranynum berof al l egedl yi m pr operact s comm i t t ed by tea m s, c o a c h e s, p layers , ref e re e s a n d u m p ire s, a n d o th e rs. T h is C o u rt re f u se s to c o u n ten a n c e a c o u rse o f a c tio n th a t w o u ld o n ly fur t herbur den al r eadyl i m i t ed j udi ci al r es our ces and for ce p ro f e ss io n a l sp o rts o rg a n iza tio n s a n d re late d in d iv id u a ls to expend money , t i m e, and r es our ces t o defe nd agai ns ts uch lit ig a tio n . S e e , e.g ., B ick e tt, 4 7 2 N .Y .S .2 d a t 8 8 3 (“ B u f f a lo N ew s s por t s edi t or , L arr yFel s er , i n hi s col um n of M ay30, 1983 w arned of the di r e cons equenc es of perm i t t i ng s uch a theoryof recoveryt o ex i st , ‘I f t he fa n (pl ai nti ff) w i ns againstthe B i l l s, e v e rylaw y e r in W e ste rn N e w Y o rk c o u ld u se th e p re c e d e n t to fi nan ce a va cat i on t o the R i vier a. ’”)
. U nd er the cir cum st ances, publ i c pol i cycons i der at i ons evi dent l yw ei gh agai ns tM ay erand h is v a ri o u s c la im s . S e e G a ri f in e , 4 6 1 A .2 d a t 1 1 3 7 -3 8
. I n concl us i on, t hi s C our tw i l l aff i r m the di s m i s s al of M ay er ’ s amended compl ai nt
. A gai n, i tbear s r epea t i ng thatour r eas oni ng her e i s l i m i t ed t o t he unus ual and eve n uni que ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed bythi s appea l
. W e do notcondone the conducton t he partof the Patr i ot s and the t eam’ s head c oach, an d w e li k ew ise ref

rain f rom asse ssing w h ethe r th e N F L ’s s anct i ons ( and i t s al l eged de s t ruct i on of the vi deot apes t hemsel ves ) w er e otherw i s e appr opr i at e. W e furt herr ecogni ze t hat pr ofessi on al foo tball , l i ke o t her professi on al sport s, i s a m ul t i

- bi l l i on dol l arbus i nes s . I n turn, t i cket

- hol der s and other fans m ayhave l egi t i m at e i s s ues w i t h t he manneri n w hi ch they a re tre a ted . S e e , e.g ., C h a rp e n tier, 7 5 C a l. A p p . 4 th a t 3 1 4 (“ It is comm on know l edge thatpr ofes s i onal s por t s fr anchi s ees have a s or di d hi s t or yof arr ogantdi s dai n forthe cons um er s of the pr oduct
. ” ( footnot e omi t t ed) )
. Si gni fi cant l y , ourrul i ng al s o does n o t le a v e M a y e r a n d o th e r t ic k e t- h o ld e rs w ith o u t a n yre c o u rs e . I ns t ead, fans coul d s peak outagai ns tthe Patr i ot s , thei rcoac h, and t he N F L i t sel f. In fact , theycou l d ev en g o so fa r as t o refuse to p u rc h a s e tic k e ts o r N F L -r e la te d m e rc h a n d is e . S e e , e .g ., B ow er s , 489 F. 3d at321 ( not i ng pos s i bl e ef fec t s of bad r eput at i on on futur e pr os pect s of s por t ) ; Seko, 22 F. 3d at774 ( s t at i ng t hat , “i ns t ead of goi ng t o t he C ubs game, the fa n m ay25 h ea d so u th f

o r C o m iske yP ark an d the W h it e S o x ”). H o w ev er, t he one thi ng t heycannot do i s br i ng a l egal act i on i n a courtof la w . V
. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s o rd e r d ism iss in g M a y e r’s a m e n d e d c o m p lain t in its e n tir e ty.