NCR Lawsuit vs USA Rugby is Dismissed
NCR Lawsuit vs USA Rugby is Dismissed
The US District Court for the Western District of Texas has dismissed National Collegiate Rugby’s lawsuit against USA Rugby.
The dismissal is based, at its core, on the fact that the Ted Stevens Act covers oversight of amateur sports in the United States. And the Ted Stevens Act specifically says this:
“An amateur sports organization or person that belongs to or is eligible to belong to a national governing body may seek to compel the national governing body to comply with sections 220522, 220524, and 220525 of this title by filing a written complaint with the corporation. A copy of the complaint shall be served on the national governing body.”
The “corporation” in this case means the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee.
The USOPC is then supposed to hold a hearing and make a decision, with the complainant eligible for arbitration.
The Court ruled in this lawsuit, then, that that is the path NCR should have taken, rather than a lawsuit.
The case is dismissed without prejudice because NCR is still open to do what the Ted Stevens Act maps out, and file a complaint with the USOPC.
This is exactly the same decision the courts made on the two referee lawsuits filed against USA Rugby by Justin Hale and Christopher Micheletti—any arguments are essentially moot because federal law states that these complaints should go through the USOPC.
NCR was suing because it claimed that USA Rugby defamed them by saying their competitions are unsanctioned. They also claimed that insisting on dues from NCR teams was a money-grab to alleviate financial problems. And they also sued over pressure applied to referees, exorbitant sanctioning fees for tournaments (specifically the CRC), tortious interference, and deceptive trade practices.
Some of the complaints referenced state law, some federal, but the US District Judge Robert Pitman, in his opinion, said all of this is trumped by the jurisdiction of the Ted Stevens Act.
From Judge Pitman’s decision September 11:
“The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff’s Ted Stevens Act claims should be dismissed because there is no private right of action under the Act. In addition, the magistrate judge found that the Ted Stevens Act “not only preempts eligibility challenges brought directly under the Act, but other state law causes of action that essentially sought relief for issues governed by the Act.” As such, the magistrate judge found that the Act preempts Plaintiff’s state-law claims for tortious interference, defamation and fraud by omission, and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.. Though Defendants asked the Court to stay the case and order it be arbitrated, the magistrate judge concluded that the Court has no authority to do so because Plaintiff has no federal cause of action and its state claims are preempted. Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended that the Court sua sponte dismiss the claims Case.”
(Direct quote from Judge Pitman's decision, with citations removed).
"Sua sponte" means of one's own volition. So, in this case, USA Rugby had not asked for a dismissal, and the Magistrate Mark Lane suggested that the Court, that is, Judge Pitman, make his own decision to dismiss the case.
While Magistrate Lane recommended dismissal with prejudice (meaning you can never bring it up again), Judge Pitman dismissed without prejudice because he felt the Court had no jurisdiction to do so; NCR can still raise a complaint with the USOPC.
Note that USA Rugby requested that the decision be stayed and arbitration be the option, however, again, the Court said they didn’t have the power to do that, because the Ted Stevens Act spells out how a complaint should be handled.
So the lawsuit is dismissed, but NCR (and, for that matter, Hale and Micheletti) can still bring grievances before the USOPC. It remains a question why they didn’t do that in the first place.
Why Did NCR Do What They Did?
Earlier this summer, Goff Rugby Report sent an email with questions for members of NCR. These questions were not answered:
1. What is NCR's hoped-for result from the lawsuit vs USA Rugby? To clarify - if NCR wins, what do you hope to accomplish from that?
2. Given that the recent referee rulings indicated a court leaning toward a) referring any Ted Stevens Act-related complaints to federal court, if plaintiffs choose to refile, and b) advocating for arbitration in any Ted Stevens Act-related complaint, what does NCR expect to do next?
3. The Ted Stevens Act does seem to pretty clearly say that if your organization has a problem, you first petition the USOPC, and then, "A party aggrieved by a determination of the corporation under section 220527 ... may obtain review by the arbitration and mediation provider designated by the corporation under section 220522(a)(4)."
Did NCR petition USOPC to address your complaints? Sorry if I missed this if you did.
And would arbitration not be the better course of action because this suit appears to be (correct me if I am wrong) largely a Ted Stevens Act complaint?
