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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARK ADAMS, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BRG SPORTS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00457-BLF 

ORDER:

(1) DISMISSING DEFENDANT ALL 

AMERICAN SPORTS CORPORATION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE ON IN 

PERSONAM JURISDICTION 

GROUNDS;

(2) TRANSFERRING ACTION TO THE 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

AS TO DEFENDANT BRG SPORTS, 

INC. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1406 

AND AS TO DEFENDANT RIDDELL, 

INC. PURSUANT TO § 1631;

(3) TERMINATING AS MOOT 

PENDING MOTIONS AT ECF 30, 31, 32, 

52 WITHOUT PREJUDICE

In the wake of the media firestorm that has rocked the sport of football surrounding the 

long term effects of concussions, thirty-four former college football players from around the 

country have filed a products liability action against the companies involved in the manufacturing, 

marketing, and sales of the helmets they wore. These college football players (the “Players”) 

allege that Riddell, Inc., BRG Sports, Inc., and All American Sports Corporation (collectively, 

“Defendants”) are liable for their negligent manufacturing of football helmets over a thirty-year 

period including their failure to warn players of the risks of brain injuries. See Complaint, ECF 1. 

The Players chose to bring this action in the Northern District of California, but here’s the catch:

none of the Players currently reside or ever played football in California, and none of their injuries 

occurred in California. In fact, none of the three defendant companies sued by the Players is

incorporated or headquartered in California. 
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim, ECF 30, as 

well as a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction with respect to Defendants Riddell and 

All American Sports, ECF 32. Defendants also moved to sever the Players’ claims into thirty-four

distinct lawsuits. See ECF 31. The Players opposed all of these motions, and filed a motion to 

amend their complaint. See ECF 52.

The Court held a hearing on these pending motions on October 5, 2017. After an extensive 

discussion at the hearing, while the matters were under submission, the Players informed the Court 

of their plan to resolve a number of the issues raised in Defendants’ motions. See ECF 61. 

Importantly, the Players stated their intent to dismiss All American Sports from this action 

entirely, and to seek a transfer of the remaining claims against Riddell and BRG Sports to the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The Court held a further status conference on November 9, 2017. At that time, the Parties 

informed the Court that they would stipulate to a dismissal of All American Sports without 

prejudice on in personam jurisdiction grounds. The Parties further stipulated to a transfer of the 

claims against Riddell and BRG Sports to the Northern District of Illinois. 

At the status conference, although the Players indicated a willingness to amend their

Complaint to conform to this Court’s tentative ruling at the hearing, the Defendants requested a 

formal ruling on their motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court finds that it would 

be improper to issue a formal ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss in light of the Parties’ 

stipulated transfer, which, at the Defendants’ specific request, is based on lack of personal 

jurisdiction over Riddell, and based on improper venue with respect to BRG Sports. Nevertheless, 

the following order lays out the Court’s reasoning on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and 

GRANTS the Parties’ stipulated request to transfer this action to the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Illinois. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiffs in this action consist of thirty-four former collegiate athletes (the “Players”) who 

played football at different colleges and universities at different times over the course of decades. 

See Compl. ¶ 20, ECF 1. The Players allege that they all suffer from “several symptoms 
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

indicative of long-term brain and neurocognitive injuries.” Id. At all relevant times, the Players 

allege that they “wore Riddell helmets” that Defendants were in the business of “selling, 

manufacturing, designing, testing, engineering, marketing, modifying, assembling, inspecting, 

distributing, and controlling.” Id. ¶¶ 20, 70. Because the Players suffered concussions and other 

symptoms of brain injuries despite wearing Defendants’ allegedly defective helmets, they brought 

this products liability action against BRG Sports, Inc. (“BRG Sports”), Riddell, Inc. (“Riddell”), 

and All American Sports Corporation (“All American”) for negligence, design defects, and failure 

to warn of the danger and risks associated with concussions. See generally Compl.

Specifically, the Players seek to hold Defendants liable for breaching their duties to 

properly educate their helmet users of the long-term damages resulting from helmet use, as well as 

their failure to mitigate injuries associated with the foreseeable use of their products, and failure to 

provide adequate warnings to their helmet users. Id. ¶¶ 16, 118, 123, 127. The Complaint contains 

allegations that the Players have suffered permanent injuries or remain at an elevated risk for 

injuries and latent brain damage as a result of Defendants’ conduct. Id. ¶ 2. These serious 

neurocognitive injuries include “memory loss, dementia, depression, and CTE and its related 

symptoms.” Id. ¶¶ 20, 175.

In their Complaint, the Players lay out a comprehensive background on concussions and 

brain injuries, including a “primer on concussions” as well as a detailed history of football helmet 

design. See, e.g., Compl. at 7-20. The Complaint also includes a thorough history of Defendant 

Riddell’s business, and its role in developing the helmets at issue as well as its various marketing 

campaigns over the years. Id. at 20-30. However, as further discussed below, the only information

about the Players themselves is contained in a list of their names in the case caption and an 

incomplete list of the colleges and universities where they played football, which are not tied to a 

specific player or time period. Importantly, the Complaint does not include the years or locations 

where each Player played football or wore Riddell helmets, or any salient facts regarding their 

football careers and injuries they sustained. 
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

The Parties stipulated to a dismissal of Defendant All American Sports Corporation on 

November 14, 2017. See ECF 67. The Court hereby GRANTS the Parties’ stipulation to dismiss 

All American on in personam jurisdiction grounds. Therefore, the Court’s comments regarding 

Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss are addressed only with respect to Defendants Riddell and 

BRG Sports. 

At the outset, the Court notes that it would be improper to issue a formal ruling on 

Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because it is inconsistent with the Parties’ stipulated 

request to transfer this action to the Northern District of Illinois for lack of personal jurisdiction 

over Riddell, and for improper venue with respect to BRG Sports. See ECF 65 at 3. However, 

because Defendants have requested a more formal summary of this Court’s determination

regarding the deficiencies it identified in the Players’ Complaint, the Court summarizes its 

comments from the hearing on Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss which was held on October 

5, 2017.

The Court reviewed the Players’ Complaint and the briefing on Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss as well as the relevant law. On October 5, 2017, the Court advised counsel for the Players 

at the hearing of the deficiencies that would need to be cured should this action stay with this 

Court. In particular, the Court noted that there is a complete lack of information about each of the 

Players in the Complaint aside from their names and a general list of where they played college 

football that is not tied to particular Players. Thus, the Court found that the pleadings were

primarily insufficient because the Complaint fails to provide Defendants with adequate notice of 

the specific claims against them by the individual plaintiffs. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) states that “[a] pleading which sets forth a claim for 

relief...shall contain...a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 

to relief.” As explained above, the Complaint is full of information about the history of 

concussions and Defendants’ involvement in the manufacturing, sales and marketing of football 

helmets generally. However, the lawsuit ultimately seeks relief on behalf of individual plaintiffs. 

There is simply not enough information in the Complaint regarding each Player’s use of the 
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

products in question during what time period, or the nature of his injuries that would be required 

in order to put Defendants on notice of the allegations against them. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (holding that the purpose of Rule 8(a)(2) is to “give the

defendant fair notice of what the...claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”). Rule 8 notice 

pleading “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

As explained at the hearing, this Court finds persuasive the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in 

Bautista v. Los Angeles Cty., 216 F.3d 837, 840–41 (9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit held that in 

order to comply with Rule 8, “each plaintiff must plead a short and plain statement of the elements 

of his or her claim, identifying the transaction or occurrence giving rise to the claim and the 

elements of the prima facie case.” Id. at 840. The reasoning from Bautista applies here because 

each football player’s use of the helmet and his distinct injuries are based on a separate transaction 

or occurrence, which is “properly stated in a separate count.” Id. Therefore, if this action were to 

remain in this District, the Court would have granted Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and 

required an amended complaint that included a separate count for each Player. This approach 

would facilitate a clear presentation of the issues, and allow Defendants to prepare their 

appropriate defenses or a fully-informed severance request. 

In Bautista, the Ninth Circuit went on to explain that “[s]eparate counts will be required if 

necessary to enable the defendant to frame a responsive pleading or to enable the court and the 

other parties to understand the claims.” Id. The instant case is a textbook example of an action

where each individual player’s claims arise out of a distinct set of facts, and separate statements 

will facilitate a clear presentation of the issues. Id. at 841 (citing 5 wright & Miller, Federal 

Practice And Procedure: Civil 2d § 1324). As written, the Complaint does very little to inform 

pre-trial proceedings. Bautista, 216 F.3d at 841 (citing Anderson v. District Bd. of Trustees, 77 

F.3d 364, 367 (11th Cir.1996) (“Experience teaches that, unless cases are pled clearly and 

precisely, issues are not joined, discovery is not controlled, the trial court’s docket becomes 

unmanageable, the litigants suffer, and society loses confidence in the court’s ability to administer 

justice.”).
6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

For example, the Players’ cause of action for failure to warn is not limited in time and 

appears to be identically alleged by each Player. See generally Compl. Given that the Players 

played football at different times in different states spanning back as early as 1981, it is highly 

unlikely that each Player has an identical failure to warn and design defect claim against 

Defendants. See also Erone Corp. v. Skouras Theatres Corp., 19 F.R.D. 299, 300 (S.D.N.Y. 

1956) (directing filing of an amended complaint stating the claims of each plaintiff in a separate 

count, among other reasons because “there may be defenses available to the defendants which are 

applicable to one or more plaintiffs but not to the others”). 

The Court also indicated to counsel at the hearing that the Complaint was deficient and a 

re-pleading was necessary to separate the specific allegations against Riddell from those against 

BRG Sports. As written, the theories of liability and the relevant allegations against each 

Defendant are not clear in the Complaint. At the very least, the Court would be looking for 

separate factual allegations as to each of the Defendants and what their role was in the alleged 

injuries of each Player. The fact that the Court reviewed the Complaint and the role of each 

Defendant remains unclear is a sign of deficient pleading. 

At the October 5, 2017, the Players acknowledged this Court’s instructions and agreed that 

they would need to, at a minimum, plead a separate cause of action for each Player that included 

information such as their schools, positions, injuries and dates of play. See ECF 57 at 59:6 

(“Hearing Transcript”); see also ECF 61 at 1 (Letter from counsel for the Players indicating that 

they will “replead each of their claims with more particularity, specifically addressing the 

shortcomings raised by the Court during the October 5 hearing”). Although Defendants requested 

a formal ruling from this Court granting their motion to dismiss on these grounds, the Court finds 

that ruling on Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion is improper and inconsistent with Defendants’ 

requested transfer of this case to the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 

(BRG Sports) and 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (Riddell). 
7

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. STIPULATON TO TRANSFER VENUE

The Parties stipulated to transfer venue in this case, and requested an order from this Court 

transferring this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

where both of the remaining Defendants Riddell and BRG Sports are headquartered. See ECF 65 

at 3 (the “Stipulation”). The Parties agreed in their Joint Case Management Statement and at the 

Status Conference held on November 9, 2017 that the transfer as to BRG Sports would be

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 on the grounds that venue is improper in the Northern District of 

California. Because Riddell contests this Court’s personal jurisdiction over it, the Parties 

stipulated that transfer as to Riddell would be pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. See Stipulation at 3.

A. Transfer Pursuant to § 1406(a) as to BRG Sports

In their filings with the Court and at the status conference on November 9, 2017, the 

Parties stipulated to transfer venue pursuant to § 1406 with respect to BRG Sports for improper 

venue. Defendants explained that although personal jurisdiction existed over BRG Sports in 

California at the time that this action was filed—or Defendants did not challenge such 

jurisdiction—venue is nevertheless improper in the Northern District of California. Defendants 

explained that BRG Sports has moved its principal place of business from Southern California to 

Illinois, such that it is now located in the same state as its co-defendant and subsidiary, Riddell. 

See Hearing Transcript 25:11-16; 62:4-16. Thus, this action has no plaintiff or defendant with any 

connection to the Northern District of California – or to California at all. 

A district court may transfer venue of any civil case to another district court where the 

action could have been brought “for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of 

justice .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), “[t]he district court of a district in 

which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the 

interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been 

brought.” As such, Section 1406(a) is predicated upon whether or not venue is “improper” in the 

forum in which the case was brought. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case 

filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Even if the Court
8

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

determines that venue is proper, it may transfer for the convenience of parties and witnesses. 28 

U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

At the November 9, 2017 status conference, the Parties stipulated that venue is improper in 

this District with respect to BRG Sports and that the action should be transferred pursuant to 

§ 1406. The Court finds that this action could have been brought in the Northern District of 

Illinois because BRG Sports now has its principal place of business in the Northern District of 

Illinois and is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Illinois with respect to the Players’ claims. 

The Court also finds that transferring this action to the Northern District of Illinois will serve the 

convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the interests of justice because BRG Sports

and its associated witnesses will experience serious inconvenience and substantial cost to litigate 

this action in California, a state with virtually no connection to the series of events underlying the 

Players’ claims and no current connection to the plaintiffs or the defendants in this action. 

Additionally, Illinois has a much stronger interest in the resolution of this action compared 

to the interests of California, because both of the Defendants are headquartered in the Northern 

District of Illinois and conduct substantial business in that district. BRG’s previous presence in 

California appears to be the only factor in this entire case that would favor a venue in California, 

and venue would still be improper in this District in particular. The fact that the parties have 

stipulated to the transfer further underscores the appropriateness of an inter-district transfer. 

Because the Court finds that venue is improper in this district with respect to BRG Sports, 

that the action could have been brought in the Northern District of Illinois against BRG Sports, 

and that transferring the action will serve the interests of justice and convenience of the parties and 

witnesses, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ stipulation to transfer this action with respect to BRG 

Sports pursuant to § 1406.

B. Transfer Pursuant to § 1631 as to Riddell

The transfer analysis with respect to Defendant Riddell is straightforward. The Parties 

have stipulated to a transfer of the claims against Riddell to the Northern District of Illinois 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. See Stipulation at 3. Under Section 1631, if an action is brought in 

the wrong court and the court finds “that there is a want of jurisdiction,” a federal district court 
9

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action...to any other such court in which the 

action...could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed...” 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Miller v. 

Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th Cir. 1990). Generally, “transfer will be in the interest of justice 

because normally dismissal of an action that could be brought elsewhere is ‘time-consuming and 

justice-defeating.’” Id. (quoting Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 467 (1962)); see 

also Amity Rubberized Pen Co. v. Mkt. Quest Grp. Inc., 793 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir. 2015) 

(“transfer will generally be in the interest of justice, unless it is apparent that the matter to 

be transferred is frivolous or was filed in bad faith”). 

Riddell initially filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, ECF 32, and the 

Players’ opposed the motion, ECF 48. The Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss for lack 

of personal jurisdiction on October 5, 2017. At the hearing, the Court indicated that at least with 

respect to Riddell, this case is akin to Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 

San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (“Bristol-Myers”). In Bristol-Myers, in the context of 

a mass tort action in state court, the United States Supreme Court reversed the California Supreme 

Court and held that California could not exercise specific jurisdiction over Bristol-Myers Squibb 

with respect to claims by non-residents of California who did not claim to have suffered harm in 

California. 137 S. Ct. at 1782. The Supreme Court held that the claims against the non-resident 

defendant, Bristol-Myers were missing “a connection between the forum and the specific claims at 

issue.” Id. at 1781. “When no such connection exists, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of 

the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State.” Id. 

This Court explained that this case also involved non-California plaintiffs who did not play 

football in California, were not injured in California, and did not buy helmets in California. See 

Hearing Transcript 25:9-10 (“There’s nothing California about it.”) At the hearing and in their 

briefing, the Players conceded that the Court could not exercise general jurisdiction over Riddell, 

but argued that specific jurisdiction existed. See, e.g., id. 13:1-5. 

After the hearing, the Players withdrew their opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

for lack of personal jurisdiction over Riddell and offered to transfer the action to a district that 

indisputably has personal jurisdiction over Riddell. See ECF 61. In order to resolve the personal 
10

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

jurisdiction defect with respect to Riddell, the Parties then stipulated to transfer the entire action 

against Riddell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the Northern District of Illinois where Riddell has 

its principal place of business. See ECF 65 at 3. Of course, that is the same district where 

Riddell’s co-defendant and parent company, BRG Sports, is now headquartered.

The Court finds that it is appropriate and serves the interests of judicial efficiency and 

economy to transfer this action to a district where both personal jurisdiction and venue are proper 

as to all Defendants. Particularly with respect to Riddell, transfer pursuant to § 1631 is proper 

because Riddell is “at home” with its principal place of business in Illinois and thus, the Northern 

District of Illinois would have personal jurisdiction over Riddell. Accordingly, the Court 

GRANTS the Parties’ stipulation to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois as to Riddell pursuant to § 1631. 

IV. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant All American Sports is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

on in personam jurisdiction grounds (ECF 67);

2. The Court GRANTS the Parties’ stipulation to transfer this action to the 

Northern District of Illinois with respect to BRG Sports pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1406 and with respect to Riddell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631;

In light of the transfer of this action to the Northern District of Illinois with respect to 

Riddell and BRG Sports, and the stipulated dismissal without prejudice of Defendant All 

American Sports, the Court TERMINATES AS MOOT the following pending motions

WITHOUT PREJUDICE:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 12(b)(6) (ECF 30)

2. The Players’ motion for leave to amend the Complaint (ECF 52)

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction with respect 

to Riddell and All American Sports (ECF 32)

4. Defendants’ motion to sever the Players’ claims (ECF 31)

Disputes between the Parties regarding re-pleading and severance are properly directed to 
11

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the transferee Court, who can exercise jurisdiction over the Parties in an appropriate venue. The 

Court DIRECTS the Clerk to TRANSFER this entire action to the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Illinois. Upon transfer of this action, the Clerk shall close the file.

Dated: November 21, 2017

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge