New party tries to join Brady antitrust case

Getty Images

For more than a week now, all eyes of have watching the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for a ruling on whether the lockout will remain in effect pending resolution of the appeal of Judge Nelson’s ruling that the lockout should end while the Tom Brady antitrust lawsuit goes forward.  Surprisingly, no ruling has been issued, which as a practical matter has allowed the lockout to continue pursuant to the terms of the temporary stay granted 11 days ago.

The surprises haven’t been limited to the decisions, or lack thereof, from the court.  On Tuesday, a group known as the “National Football League Players’ Reserve” filed a document entitled “motion to stay Judge Nelson’s lockout order.”  The body of the document seems to argue only that the NFLPR receive an opportunity to intervene in the action.

We’ve never previously heard of the National Football League Players’ Reserve, whose president, David R. Flood, filed the motion on his own, without counsel.  In 2008, Flood filed a lawsuit against the NFL, the Raiders, NFL Films, and Reebok.  The lawsuit, which was dismissed with prejudice in 2009, attacked the legality of the move of the Giants to New Jersey and all subsequent franchise moves.  The lawsuit also claimed that the NFL, Reebok, and NFL Films “knowingly have been marketing a fraudulent generic de facto secondary meaning trademark — Oakland Raiders.”  Among other things, the 2008 lawsuit sought that a preseason game be played between the Giants and Raiders in Sacramento, California, where Flood resides, the awarding of an NFL franchise to Sacramento, and $2.5 billion to build a stadium.  (That would be one hell of a stadium.)

In Flood’s latest legal document, the NFLPR identifies itself as “a separate single entity nominative fair use organization whose reference and interests pertain to collegiate rookie football players entering the ranks of the National Football League,” whatever that means.  The document focuses on the concept of union dues, apparently alleging that the players have a right to be notified by the NFLPA upon decertification of the union that they may revoke their dues authorizations.

The document contends that incoming rookies should be permitted to use NFL team facilities because they were not members of the union at the time of decertification.  There’s also a paragraph that purports to contend that the league did not finagle TV payments during the lockout as a device for funding the lockout, a contention that isn’t even an issue in the Brady litigation.

It’s unlikely that the Eighth Circuit will take any action on this motion, other than to summarily deny it — or possibly to completely ignore it.

17 responses to “New party tries to join Brady antitrust case

  1. National Football League Players Reserve??? Sounds like some cheap Wal-Mart wine…
    But seriously, the blood is in the water and and the sharks (lawyers) smell it and they are all trying to get in on the feast

  2. David R. Flood sounds like a man with many issues.. It appears he really wants to be involved with the NFL but has no business to do so whatsoever. Its also pretty apparent he didn’t like the Raiders moving out of L.A. Somebody call this guy a psychiatrist.

  3. Frivolous Lawsuit filed by Quack Attorney. That should have been your headline on a utterly wasted of six paragraphs. This Bozo will be ignored and this is a non-story.” National Football League Players Reserve I am Kook Farce Attorney” That’s the Name.

  4. sooooo what happened today with the 8th circuit??? Let me guess after Monday(A travel day for the Judges) Tuesday was a (ok what excuse can we come up w/ today to not pass a ruling on they stay day)?

  5. hmmmm. wonder if I, as a definitely injured party, can file an “inspectus boobus” writ with the court . I am alleging that the lockout prevents me from checking out the cheerleaders and hot ladies attending workouts and is inflicting irreparable harm on me, and all other members of my “class”

  6. 8th circuit should rule towards a restraining order between this nut bar and tinfoil hats.

  7. david7590 says:
    May 10, 2011 8:45 PM
    So why should the Raiders and Giants play in Sacramento?


    So that $2.5 billion stadium doesn’t go to waste!

  8. More ambulance chasers trying to get on the gravy train. See what Judge Nelson’s decision has started. Just making a bad situation worse.

  9. Hey, I kinda like the part about Flood suing the NFL for a stadium. Think I’ll sue over my off-season pain and suffering. But I don’t need a $2.5 billion stadium. All I want is lifetime skybox seats and first-class airline tickets to every game 😉

  10. Little D the minature commie lawyer all 3′-1′ of him will be looking to organize the Zoo soon. UNIONS what a waste of life

  11. the longer this goes, the more I am convinced that the 8th circuit will do exactly what I think they would do, they will turn judge nelsons preliminary injunction into liberal swiss cheese, setting the stage to deliver a devastating blow to the union on june 3.

  12. Anybody can file a lawsuit and lawyers often just roll the dice and hope the other side will pay them to go away. This will continue until we adopt a “Loser Pays.”

  13. Apparently all you guys missed the part where Flood filed this suit without counsel. So it doesn’t have anything to do with sharks or ambulance chasers. It’s just one enterprising nut who wants a team in Sacramento.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!