NFL Concussion Litigation - Plaintiffs Respond

Plaintiffs respond to NFL Motion to Dismiss
by Paul Anderson
http://nflconcussionlitigation.com/

In a scathing 45-page brief, the plaintiffs responded to the NFL’s motion to dismiss, arguing that they deserve to have their day in court.The plaintiffs used this as another attempt to convince Judge Brody, and the public, that their claims have nothing to do with the collective bargaining agreements.At the heart of the preemption issue, the plaintiffs have to show that their purported state-law claims are not substantially dependent upon or inextricably intertwined with the terms of the CBAs. (This is legal jargon meaning that Judge Brody can toss aside the CBAs and adjudicate the players’ claims without resort to the players’ contracts.)The plaintiffs argue that none of their claims require interpretation of the CBA; rather, these are stand-alone claims that can be successfully prosecuted without construing, among others, various health and safety provisions of the CBAs.According to the plaintiffs, the NFL acted negligently in failing to safeguard the health of the players. The NFL allegedly owed a duty to the players based upon its historical role of  “holding itself out as a protector of player well-being,” its “glorification of football violence” and its “voluntary decision to create the MTBI Committee.”This in turn, created a “special relationship” which required the NFL to act reasonably in discharging its duty. According to the plaintiffs, the court would not need to examine the various provisions of the CBA to determine the scope of this relationship because common law principles would apply.