Oakland Raiders v. National Football League
California Court of Appeal
32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 266 (2005)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
The Oakland Raiders (club) (plaintiff) were a member of the National Football League (NFL) (defendant), which was a nonprofit, unincorporated association. The club sued the NFL and its commissioner, Paul Tagliabue (defendant), alleging that they owed it a fiduciary duty (i.e., the duty to act in the club’s best interest) arising from (1) the nature of the parties’ business relationship, which allegedly was analogous to other relationships giving rise to fiduciary duties, and (2) a settlement agreement between the club and the NFL, which Tagliabue signed on the NFL’s behalf. The club further claimed that the NFL and Tagliabue breached their fiduciary duty by discriminating against it. The NFL and Tagliabue denied owing any fiduciary duty to the club, arguing that (1) as a not-for-profit, unincorporated association, the NFL’s relationship with the club was not comparable to the fiduciary relationships the club cited and (2) the NFL’s governing documents, to which all NFL clubs agreed, refuted any fiduciary relationship because they contemplated that the NFL or Tagliabue might take action adverse to the club. The trial court granted summary judgment to the NFL and Tagliabue. The club appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Premo, J.)
Concurrence (Rushing, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.