Case 2:13-cv-01531-AB3:13-cv-00478-W-RBB Document Document 1-1 1Filed Filed 03/25/13 02/28/13 Page Page 1 of 1 151of 9 1 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP RONALD L. OLSON (State Bar No. 44597) 2 [email protected] JOHN W. SPIEGEL (State Bar No. 78935) 3 [email protected] NICHOLAS C. SOLTMAN (State Bar No. 277418) 4 [email protected] 355 South Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor 5 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 6 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 7 PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP (Pro hac vice applications to be filed) 8 BRAD S. KARP [email protected] 9 THEODORE V. WELLS, JR. [email protected] 10 BETH A. WILKINSON [email protected] 11 LYNN B. BAYARD [email protected] 12 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 13 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 Facsimile: (212) 757-3990 14 Attorneys for Defendants 15 NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE and NFL PROPERTIES LLC 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 TYLER SEAU, an individual; SYDNEY SEAU, an CASE NO. '13CV0478 W RBB 19 individual; JAKE SEAU, a minor, and HUNTER SEAU, a minor, by and through their Guardian ad NOTICE OF REMOVAL 20 Litem Gina Seau; and BETTE HOFFMAN, as OF CIVIL ACTION trustee of the Tiaina B. Seau, Jr. 2002 Trust, UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441 21 Plaintiffs, 22 COMPLAINT FILED: v. San Diego Superior Court 23 Case No. 37-2013-00031265- NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE; NFL CU-PO-CTL 24 PROPERTIES LLC; RIDDELL, INC.; ALL January 23, 2013 AMERICAN SPORTS CORP.; RIDDELL 25 SPORTS GROUP, INC.; EASTON-BELL SPORTS, INC.; EASTON-BELL SPORTS, LLC; 26 EB SPORTS CORP.; and RBG HOLDINGS CORP., 27 28 Defendants. NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Case 2:13-cv-01531-AB3:13-cv-00478-W-RBB Document Document 1-1 1Filed Filed 03/25/13 02/28/13 Page Page 2 of 2 151of 9 1 TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, for the reasons set forth below, 4 Defendants National Football League (“NFL”) and NFL Properties LLC (“NFLP,” 5 and together with the NFL, the “NFL Defendants”), by their undersigned attorneys, 6 file this Notice of Removal to remove the claims against them in this action from 7 the Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego County, to the United 8 States District Court for the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 9 §§ 1367, 1441 and 1446. Removal is made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on the 10 basis of federal question jurisdiction. The grounds for removal are as follows: 11 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 12 1. On February 5 and 6, 2013, the NFL Defendants were served 13 by Plaintiffs, the children and trustee of the trust of former NFL player Tiaina B. 14 Seau, Jr. (“Junior Seau”), who is deceased, with a Summons and Complaint (the 15 “Complaint”) filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego 16 County, No. 37-2013-00031265-CU-PO-CTL. On February 4, 2013, Plaintiffs 17 filed an amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) in the Superior Court of 18 the State of California, San Diego County. Copies of these papers and other 19 documents filed in the action are annexed as Exhibit A. 20 2. The Amended Complaint alleges that decedent Junior Seau 21 played in the NFL from 1990-2009, where he purportedly “sustained injuries 22 leading to his death.” (Am. Comp. ¶ 21.) The Amended Complaint further 23 alleges, among other things, that the NFL fraudulently concealed “the risks of head 24 injuries in NFL games and practices, including the risks associated with returning 25 to physical activity too soon after sustaining a sub-concussive or concussive 26 injury,” failed to enact “return-to-play rules consistent with proper medical 27 management of MTBI,” and “withheld” from NFL players information about “the 28 kind of repetitive traumatic impacts to the head to which [they] were exposed” and - 2 - NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Case 2:13-cv-01531-AB3:13-cv-00478-W-RBB Document Document 1-1 1Filed Filed 03/25/13 02/28/13 Page Page 3 of 3 151of 9 1 about the risks posed by those impacts. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 229, 243, 260-61.) The 2 Amended Complaint purports to allege causes of action for fraudulent 3 concealment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, negligent hiring, 4 negligent retention and wrongful death against the NFL Defendants. (Am. Compl. 5 ¶¶ 226-321.) The Amended Complaint also alleges a cause of action for wrongful 6 death due to negligence, design defects, and failure to warn against Riddell, Inc.; 7 All American Sports Corp.; Riddell Sports Group, Inc.; Easton-Bell Sports, Inc.; 8 Easton-Bell Sports, LLC; EB Sports Corp.; and RBG Holdings Corp. (collectively, 9 the “Riddell Defendants”). (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 322-47.) Plaintiffs seek recovery of 10 compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ 11 fees. (Am. Compl. p. 57.) 12 3. The relationship between the NFL Defendants and Junior Seau 13 was governed by various collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) that were 14 executed and operative during his career. The CBAs are the product of exhaustive 15 arm’s-length negotiations between, the NFL Management Council (the exclusive 16 bargaining representative of the NFL), and the NFL Players Association (the 17 exclusive bargaining representative of NFL players), and “represent[] the complete 18 understanding of the parties on all subjects covered [t]herein.” (CBA Art. II § 1 19 (1993-2010).) The CBAs include, among other terms, provisions relating to player 20 medical care and safety, rule-making, and dispute resolution. 21 II. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL 22 4. This Court has original jurisdiction of this action under 28 23 U.S.C. § 1331 because the action is one that is founded on a claim or right “arising 24 under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” A defendant may 25 remove an action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 if the complaint presents 26 a federal question, such as a federal claim. See Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, 27 390 U.S. 557, 560, 88 S. Ct. 1235, 1237, 20 L. Ed. 2d 126 (1968). 28 5. Federal question jurisdiction exists in this case based on - 3 - NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Case 2:13-cv-01531-AB3:13-cv-00478-W-RBB Document Document 1-1 1Filed Filed 03/25/13 02/28/13 Page Page 4 of 4 151of 9 1 complete preemption under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act 2 (“LMRA”) of Plaintiffs’ claims. See Young v. Anthony’s Fish Grottos, Inc., 830 3 F.2d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[I]f federal law completely preempts a state law 4 claim and supplants it with a federal claim, the state law claim may be removed to 5 federal court.”). 6 6. To the extent that any of the claims in the Amended Complaint 7 is not preempted, it “form[s] part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. 8 § 1367. This Court thus has supplemental jurisdiction over all parties and claims. 9 See Bobadilla-German v. Bear Creek Orchards, Inc., 641 F.3d 391, 394 (9th Cir. 10 2011) (holding that district court “had jurisdiction over [plaintiffs’] state-law 11 claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367”); Garcia v. Am. Red Cross, No. CV-92 2513, 1992 12 WL 470325, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 1992) (denying plaintiffs’ motion for 13 remand based on lack of jurisdiction over a pendent party co-defendant); Maxwell 14 v. Nat’l Football League, No. 11-cv-08394 R(MANx), Order at 2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 15 8, 2011) (“As long as at least one federal claim is present, this Court can exercise 16 supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 17 1367”); Duerson v. Nat’l Football League, No. 12 C 2513, 2012 WL 1658353, at 18 *6 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2012) (“Federal jurisdiction thus exists over [plaintiff’s 19 negligence] claim, and the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 20 rest of Duerson’s claims.”). 21 7. Section 301 of the LMRA provides that the federal courts have 22 original jurisdiction over all “[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer 23 and a labor organization.” 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). The Supreme Court has held that 24 “questions relating to what the parties to a labor agreement agreed, and what legal 25 consequences were intended to flow from breaches of that agreement, must be 26 resolved by reference to uniform federal law, whether such questions arise in the 27 context of a suit for breach of contract or in a suit alleging liability in tort.” Allis- 28 Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 211 (1985); see also Hubbard v. United - 4 - NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Case 2:13-cv-01531-AB3:13-cv-00478-W-RBB Document Document 1-1 1Filed Filed 03/25/13 02/28/13 Page Page 5 of 5 151of 9 1 Airlines, Inc., 927 F.2d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that plaintiff’s 2 fraud and RICO claims were preempted because allegations “involve[d] violation 3 of a right created by the CBA”).