Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Case 4.1
MAYER V. BELICHICK
United States Court of Appeals
605 F.3D 223; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10212 [April 14, 2010]
FACTS:
Mayer, a New Jersey resident and New York Jets season ticket holder attended a game on
September 9, 2007 between the Jets and the Patriots.
After the game (Patriots won 38-14) ESPN reported that the National Football League (NFL) was
investigating allegations that an employee of the Patriots was videotaping signals given by Jets
coaches at this game.
Mayer filed a complaint September 7, 2007 (which was amended August 19, 2008) against the
Patriots, headquartered in Massachusetts, the teams’ head coach, Belichick, and the NFL alleging 9
causes of action including tortious interference with contractual relations, common law fraud,
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), breach of implied
contract or quasi contract, among other allegations.
As a ticket holder Plaintiff contents that as a matter of contract the game must be played in
accordance with NFL rules and regulations.
The NFL rule provides that “no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the
coaches’ booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game” and that “all video for
coaching purposes must be shot from locations ‘enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead.’”
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).
PROCEDURE: The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Defendants motion to
dismiss.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mayer had an actionable injury (standing) to bring the lawsuit?
RULE: “Standing to Sue is established if a plaintiff can allege that the litigation involves a case or
controversy and the plaintiff must allege a personal stake in the resolution of the controversy.”
REASONING:
1. A plaintiff must have a legally recognizable claim to maintain a lawsuit. The court found Mayer had
at best a license or a contractual right to a seat to watch the game, which was honored.
refrained from assessing the appropriateness of the NFL sanctions.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
In November 2006, another public accusation of cheating (by way of videotaping) was made
against the Patriots.
