Roster Limits and Case Settlement - Potential Problem

[mthoopsfan]

"Wilken, concerned that current athletes could lose their spots — and many already have across sports — suggested the sides figure out a way to grandfather in athletes who have or had roster spots that they’ll lose “as a result of the immediate implementation of the settlement agreement.” She wrote that “limits could be accomplished gradually by attrition.”

After the attorneys declined to address her concern this month, many filed additional objections to the settlement, including a handful of athletes affected by the proposed roster limits, plus parents of affected athletes, plus lawyers representing affected athletes. Wilken appears to have been swayed by those letters.

“We appreciate the court’s guidance and thoughtful review of this monumental case,” Steve Berman, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, said in a statement Wednesday. “We are pleased that the court has rejected all of the objections but the roster issue, and we will work hard to convince the NCAA and the conferences to address the court’s concerns. If we are unable to do so, then we are off to trial and we will return to fighting the NCAA in court with next steps.” WaPost today.

[The judge previously told the parties to address this issue, but they didn't.]

 

[SoldierGriz]

Is it common for judges to consider letters from people as evidence?

I get considering these types of things during sentencing or deciding damages, but evidence for a verdict?

I am clearly no lawyer...just seems strange to me.

What a wierd world where judges are single-handedly deciding the structure of college sports.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

I am not sure it’s a problem, but it seems the parties will need to accommodate the court’s concerns or the settlement probably won’t be approved. That’s the nature of a fairness hearing in a class action settlement. When the order binds a class and the opt out deadline has passed, the fairness hearing is part of due process.

Due process seems to be a novel concept to some these days (not pointing at Hoops).

 

[goatcreekgriz]

Is it common for judges to consider letters from people as evidence?

I get considering these types of things during sentencing or deciding damages, but evidence for a verdict?

I am clearly no lawyer...just seems strange to me.

What a wierd world where judges are single-handedly deciding the structure of college sports.

It is absolutely common in this context. There is no verdict. A fairness hearing for a class action settlement is an entirely different animal.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

One other point: the judge is not single-handedly deciding the structure of college sports. The issue for the judge to decide is whether a proposed settlement presented by private parties in a class action is fair and should bind non-parties (class members). The private parties framed the issues and negotiated the proposed settlement, not the judge.

Bravo to the judge for not being a rubber stamp.

 

[ElrodGrizzly]

Is it common for judges to consider letters from people as evidence?

I get considering these types of things during sentencing or deciding damages, but evidence for a verdict?

I am clearly no lawyer...just seems strange to me.

What a wierd world where judges are single-handedly deciding the structure of college sports.

Yes, its normal. I was recently notified that I'm part of a class that is reaching a settlement. When I received that, I am given the opportunity to voice my objections. Voicing my objections will 1) be a chance for those actually affected to be heard by the court (in their case, the athletes that are part of the class) and 2) preserve some rights and opportunities by having my objection on record, even if it doesn't go anywhere. If you do have an issue with it and you do NOT file those letters with the court, then you are tacitly agreeing with the proposed settlement.

This difference is that this isn't a verdict hearing, but a large class is being represented by a very small group who have not been able to directly advocate for themselves while the two parties (the plaintiffs' attorneys and the NCAA) negotiated a settlement. This is a chance for those athletes to actually have a say in the settlement that effects them. So the judge isn't deciding the structure, but is judging whether or not the proposed settlement agreement with the NCAA is actually fair to the athletes in question.

At least, that is my understanding. I'm not a lawyer.

 

[mthoopsfan]

Is it common for judges to consider letters from people as evidence?

I get considering these types of things during sentencing or deciding damages, but evidence for a verdict?

I am clearly no lawyer...just seems strange to me.

What a wierd world where judges are single-handedly deciding the structure of college sports.

Don’t know. It’s not a verdict. It’s a settlement. Some of the letters are from affected parties. The judge is trying to evaluate how impacted people feel. The judge’s to sign off on the settlement. She doesn’t want opportunities for existing players to be eliminated. Personally, I think she should question much more if the settlement.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

Yes, its normal.

this isn't a verdict hearing, but a large class is being represented by a very small group who have not been able to directly advocate for themselves while the two parties (the plaintiffs' attorneys and the NCAA) negotiated a settlement. This is a chance for those athletes to actually have a say in the settlement that effects them. So the judge isn't deciding the structure, but is judging whether or not the proposed settlement agreement with the NCAA is actually fair to the athletes in question.

At least, that is my understanding. I'm not a lawyer.

Your understanding is basically correct.

The named plaintiffs serve as class representatives who previously demonstrated to the court that they are similarly situated to the class members, then the court certifies the class. The vast majority of cases then require notice to class members allowing them to opt out of the class. Notice is required again if a proposed settlement is reached in order to allow class members to object to the settlement. The court examines the terms of the settlement and the objections, and conducts a fairness hearing. If the court determines the settlement is fair, then it is approved and all class members are bound. The court will then enter a bar order preventing class members from filing lawsuits that involve the same claims that were involved in the class action lawsuit.

But there can be hiccups at the fairness hearing, which seems to be what happened here. The court can refuse to approve the settlement unless the parties satisfactorily address an issue or issues that the court identifies. Sometimes the parties fix the problem(s), and the court approves the revised settlement; sometimes the parties cannot or will not fix the problem(s), and the lawsuit continues.

It can be a long and complicated process, but it is designed to attempt to be fair to class members who will be bound by the terms of the settlement.

 

[SoldierGriz]

It is absolutely common in this context. There is no verdict. A fairness hearing for a class action settlement is an entirely different animal.

Thanks