Tag Archives: O’Bannon

NCAA Argues O’Bannon Win Insufficient for a Grant of $42 Million in Attorneys’ Fees

The NCAA has moved for the Ninth Circuit to deny a $42 million attorney’s fees request regarding the underlying litigation over rules barring student-athletes from receiving compensation for their names, images, and likeness, as the NCAA alleged the win was only partial, and thus, such a large award is inappropriate. As background, a California district court issued an injunction, which prevented the NCAA from capping student-athletes financial aid amounts below the full cost of attendance, and that student-athletes could receive up to $5,000 per…

Continue Reading....

O’Bannon Attorneys Attempt to Cash In with the Ninth Circuit

On February 16, 2017, attorneys for the student-athletes in the infamous O’Bannon case argued in front of the Ninth Circuit that they are entitled to over $42 million in attorney’s fees. The attorney’s obtained an injunction from the district court that the NCAA could not cap student-athlete aid packages at below the full cost of attendance, and that student-athletes could receive up to $5,000 per year in cash payments for use of their name, image, and likeness. However, the appellate court reversed the district court’s…

Continue Reading....

Supreme Court Denies Review of O’Bannon Lawsuit

On October 3, 2016, the United States Supreme Court announced that it denied requests from both the NCAA and former student athletes to review the ruling in the infamous O’Bannon lawsuit. As a result, the Court will not attempt to tackle the issue of compensation for college student athletes, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s panel decision intact. In response, the chief legal counselor of the NCAA, Donald Remy, promptly released a statement reacting to the court’s decision. According to Remy, while they are obviously disappointed…

Continue Reading....

NCAA Unhappy with O’Bannon Support in Antitrust Suit

Following the Ninth Circuit decision that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) violated antitrust laws by denying students compensation for the use of their likeness, the NCAA petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its appeal. In an unexpected turn of events in the O’Bannon v. NCAA lawsuit, the NCAA is arguing that O’Bannon is secretly in favor of the NCAA bid. In the Ninth Circuit ruling, the court in essence maintained that student-athletes should be compensated for the use of their name and likeness. However,…

Continue Reading....

O’Bannon Requests Supreme Court Kick First Amendment Question

While the O’Bannon appeal from the Ninth Circuit awaits a response from the Supreme Court, both sides have continued to strategically downplay the opposition’s arguments. Most recently, O’Bannon filed a July 1, 2016 brief advising the Supreme Court not to consider whether the Ninth Circuit should have barred the antitrust suit over compensation for athletes’ images and likenesses on First Amendment grounds. O’Bannon argues that the constitutional argument is not a central issue to the case. O’Bannon, on behalf of the former NCAA athletes, has…

Continue Reading....

NFHS Lines Up Behind NCAA in O’Bannon Appeal, Files Amicus Brief in Support

The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) has filed an amicus brief supporting the NCAA in its petition to the Supreme Court appealing the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the case of O’Bannon v. NCAA. In its brief, the NFHS extolled the virtues of amateurism, and warned that “[a]llowing college athletes to receive compensation in any form not tied to their college education not only would threaten the unique nature of college athletics, and thus much of its appeal, but also would diminish…

Continue Reading....

NCAA: What To Do With $9 Million?

The marathon antitrust case commenced in 2009 between the NCAA and former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon and other former student athletes continues to this day. Several disgruntled former student athletes are suing the NCAA for wrongfully profiting off their likeness. The former students argue that the NCAA wrongfully used and profited from their names, images and likeness in various ways — including video games like EASports — without being compensated for it. Last May, U.S. District Judge Wilken ordered the NCAA to immediately pay…

Continue Reading....

Student-Athletes Challenging the NCAA’s ‘Grant-in-Aid’ Rules Seek to Continue Lawsuit By Distancing Themselves from O’Bannon

On May 31, 2016, student-athletes fighting NCAA bylaws which prevent compensation beyond the cost of attending college filed an opposition to the NCAA’s bid for judgement on the pleadings of their anti-trust claims. The key element of their opposition is that they are raising claims wholly different from the landmark O’Bannon v. NCAA case which had a momentous ruling in late 2015. By arguing that the issues are different from the O’Bannon case they stop the court from dismissing the case to prevent re-litigating…

Continue Reading....

O’Bannon and Former Student-Athletes Continue Pursuit of Supreme Court Review

On May 26, 2016, former NCAA student-athletes, led by former basketball player Ed O’Bannon, filed a reply brief further urging the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s reversal of compensation for the NCAA’s use of student-athletes’ image and likeness. The student-athletes’ contend that the NCAA misconstrued Supreme Court precedent to justify using amateurism as an excuse for its anti-competitive rules which violate federal anti-trust law. This request to the Supreme Court was the result of a recent Ninth Circuit decision which found the NCAA…

Continue Reading....

NCAA Victory: Order to Post $42 Million Bond Lifted

On Friday, May 23, 2016, California U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in favor of the NCAA’s fee bond appeal, granting the organization’s request to not post bond while it appeals the O’Bannon decision. The NCAA filed the fee bond appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court on May 10, 2016, arguing that it was unnecessary to reserve more than $42 million in attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the O’Bannon case. The NCAA claimed that the fee bond would place undue detriment on the organization,…

Continue Reading....