UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-61565-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

JUNIOR GALETTE, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

ROGER GOODELL, et al., 

Defendants.

________________________/ 

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants 

Cleveland Browns, Kansas City Chiefs, Seattle Seahawks, Washington Commanders, Carolina 

Panthers, Las Vegas Raiders, Los Angeles Rams, and Roger Goodell (collectively, “the Teams”), 

ECF No. [57] (the “Teams’ Motion”); and the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant National 

Football League Players Association (“NFLPA”), ECF No. [58] (the “NFLPA’s Motion”).

Plaintiff Junior Galette (“Galette”) filed a Response to the Teams’ Motion. ECF No. [59]. The 

Teams and the NFLPA filed Replies, ECF Nos. [63], [64]. Galette filed an unauthorized Sur-reply, 

ECF No. [65]. See S.D. Fla. Local Rule 7.1(c)(1) (prohibiting the filing of sur-replies “without 

prior leave of Court”). The Court has considered the Motions, the supporting and opposing filings, 

the record, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons stated below, 

Defendants’ Motions are granted. 

I. BACKGROUND

On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff Junior Galette filed his Complaint against NFL 

Commissioner Roger Goodell, the NFLPA, and the seven NFL teams listed above. ECF No. [1]. 

Therein, he alleged that he was a Black football player with the team formerly known as the 

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2023 Page 1 of 6
Case No. 22-cv-61565-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

Washington Redskins, currently known as the Washington Commanders. Id. ¶ 10. He asserted 

violations of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (Count I), his Freedom of Speech rights (Count II), and a 

provision of the NFL-NFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) (Count III). Id. ¶¶ 62-

64.

On December 30, 2022, the Court dismissed Galette’s Complaint. See Order on Motions 

to Dismiss, ECF No. [48]. The Court concluded that Counts I and II of Galette’s Complaint were

deficient under Rule 12(b)(6) and Count III was subject to a mandatory arbitration provision within 

the CBA. See generally id. The Court granted Galette leave to amend Counts I and II. Id. at 13.

On January 17, 2023, Galette filed an Amended Complaint, ECF No. [49], which the Court

dismissed sua sponte for failing to comply with the Court’s instruction to omit Count III. ECF No. 

[54].

On January 25, 2023, Galette filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). ECF No. 

[55]. In their Motion, the Teams argue that the SAC fails to cure any of the deficiencies noted in 

the Court’s prior Order dismissing Galette’s original Complaint. See generally ECF No. [57]. The 

NFLPA makes similar arguments and additionally argues that “neither of Mr. Galette’s Counts has 

anything to do with the NFLPA[.]” ECF No. [58] at 2.

Galette’s Response is essentially a reiteration of allegations within his SAC and an ad 

hominem attack on opposing counsel. See generally ECF No. [59]. In Reply, the Teams argue that 

“[n]othing in [Galette]’s opposition addresses the Court’s concerns or hints that another attempt to 

plead a claim would be fruitful.” ECF No. [63]. The NFLPA additionally points out that Galette’s 

Response contains only a single line referring to the NFLPA, thus supporting the NFLPA’s 

argument that it has nothing to do with Galette’s claims. ECF No. [64]. 

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2023 Page 2 of 6
Case No. 22-cv-61565-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

3 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual 

allegations,” it must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, (2007); 

see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that Rule 8(a)(2)’s pleading standard 

“demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation” (citing 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)). Additionally, a complaint may not rest on “‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid 

of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 

“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept the plaintiff’s allegations as 

true and evaluate all plausible inferences derived from those facts in favor of the plaintiff. See

Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012); AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co. 

v. Infinity Fin. Grp., LLC, 608 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (“On a motion to dismiss, 

the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all facts alleged 

by the non-moving party are accepted as true.” (citations omitted)). A court considering a Rule 

12(b) motion is generally limited to the facts contained in the complaint and attached exhibits, 

including documents referred to in the complaint that are central to the claim. See Wilchombe v. 

TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 959 (11th Cir. 2009). While the court is required to accept as 

true all allegations contained in the complaint, courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal 

conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 

478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). 

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2023 Page 3 of 6
Case No. 22-cv-61565-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

4

III. DISCUSSION

As noted above, Galette’s SAC consists of two Counts: the 1866 Civil Rights Act (Count 

I), and Freedom of Speech (Count II).

Beginning with Count I, the Court again infers that Galette is attempting to assert a claim

of racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See ECF No. [48] at 9-10 (deciphering Galette’s 

claim that is ostensibly brought under sections 1-2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act). In his SAC, 

Galette asserts that his original (dismissed) Complaint contained ample proof that Galette’s former 

White teammate was an inferior football player who received a better offer than Galette. ECF No. 

[55] ¶ 2. Galette asserts that the Washington Commanders violated his rights by offering him “a 

two year deal worth 4 million[.]” Id. ¶ 5. He asserts that the other NFL teams discriminated against 

him through unspecified acts of retaliation. Id. ¶ 6. Lastly, he asserts that the NFLPA failed to 

defend his rights. Id. ¶ 7. 

As the Teams correctly point out, Galette has failed to cure any of the five deficiencies that 

this Court previously noted regarding Count I of Galette’s original Complaint. See ECF No. [57] 

at 3. The allegations within the SAC are even more conclusory than those within the original 

Complaint. In essence, Galette is claiming that all Defendants are liable for discriminating against 

him because, whereas Galette received a mere “4 million” offer from the Washington 

Commanders, Galette’s inferior White teammate received a better offer from an unidentified 

team.

1

 ECF No. [55] ¶ 5. Even accepting Galette’s allegations as true, they fail to state a claim for 

relief because, among other reasons previously discussed, they fail to specify a discriminatory act 

taken by a Defendant. See ECF No. [48] at 10-11. Count I is again subject to dismissal.

1 In Galette’s original Complaint, he identifies the team that signed Galette’s former White teammate as the 

Buffalo Bills. See ECF No. [1] ¶ 10. The Buffalo Bills is not a named Defendant in this case. 

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2023 Page 4 of 6
Case No. 22-cv-61565-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

5

Turning to Count II, Galette asserts that his “guaranteed right to freedom of speech and 

freedom of the press” were violated when the Washington Commanders rescinded its offer to 

Galette because he exercised his right to free speech. ECF No. [55] ¶ 10. The other teams violated 

his rights because “no one would dare hire” him. Id. ¶ 13. 

As the Teams correctly point out, ECF No. [57] at 4, Galette has failed to cure the primary 

deficiency the Court identified within Count II of Galette’s original Complaint: It lacks a credible 

allegation of state action. ECF No. [48] at 11-12. Count II is again subject to dismissal.

Having found that Counts I and II fail to state a claim for relief, the remaining issue is 

whether Galette should be granted leave to amend. Although leave to amend “should be freely 

given,” a court may deny leave when amendment would be “futile.” Hall v. United Ins. Co. of 

America, 367 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). As Defendant 

Teams correctly note, ECF No. [57] at 1, Galette has had three opportunities to state a claim, but 

has been unable to do so, despite specific instructions from the Court regarding the claims’ 

deficiencies. The Court concludes that further amendment would be futile. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Teams’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [57], is GRANTED.

2. The NFLPA’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [58], is GRANTED.

3. The Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. [55], is DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE.

4. All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT and all deadlines are 

TERMINATED;

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2023 Page 5 of 6
Case No. 22-cv-61565-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

6

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on March 16, 2023.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

AlphaLives@yahoo.com

Case 0:22-cv-61565-BB Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2023 Page 6 of 6