By Dorothy Atkins
Law360, San Francisco (May 3, 2017, 12:46 PM EDT) —
A Texas federal judge on Tuesday remanded former Houston Texans and Philadelphia Eagles linebacker DeMeco Ryans’ personal injury lawsuit against his former teams and the National Football League, saying his claims aren’t preempted by federal law because their resolution doesn’t require an interpretation of his collective bargaining agreement with the NFL.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt sent Ryans’ suit back to the court where the dispute originated, finding that Ryans’ negligence claims do not automatically require an interpretation of the CBA, but should instead focus on the conduct of the involved parties.
“While the court acknowledges that the CBA governs certain aspects of the plaintiff’s contractual agreement with the NFL, the court is of the opinion that the terms contained therein would not be implicated in the course of the plaintiff’s presentation of his negligence claims,” the judge said.
Ryans, who played for the Texans before being traded to the Eagles in 2012, was injured on the field at Houston’s NRG stadium in 2014 while playing for the Eagles against his former team.
He originally hit the Texans and the NFL with a $10 million lawsuit in Texas state court in October. Ryans claimed he suffered a career-ending, noncontact Achilles tendon injury due to unsafe “seams” in the removable natural grass surface at the stadium, which has since been replaced. The injury occurred when he landed on one of the seams after intercepting a pass.
The Texans took the case to federal court arguing that his claims are preempted by the federal Labor Management Relations Act and that the resolution of his claims require the interpretation of the CBA that governs the terms of the relationship between the NFL and its players.
In December, Ryans asked the court to remand the case, arguing that the suit should be handled in state court because his claims are not preempted by the LMRA. Ryans reasoned that his complaint disclaims any remedy under the CBA and that his claims are based on Texas tort law concepts that require no interpretation of the CBA.
Specifically, Ryans said he is bringing premises liability claims that are independent of the CBA, as they focus on the duty the Texans, as a lessee of the stadium, have to invitees to warn of and prevent dangerous conditions.
In February the team pushed back, arguing that Ryans’ case is the first of its kind and the two cases pointed to by Ryans, where the federal courts found injuries during games to be outside the CBA, are different from his and do not support remand of Ryans’ claims.
But on Tuesday, Judge Hoyt sided with Ryans, finding that the player’s premises liability claim under Texas state law is not inextricably intertwined with consideration of the CBA, because Ryans never invoked the CBA to satisfy any of the elements of his claim.
Ryans’ attorney Robert E. Ammons of The Ammons Law Firm LLP told Law360 Wednesday that he believes Judge Hoyt’s ruling is correct under the law and it’s “unfortunate” that the case had an unnecessary delay.
Counsel for both the Houston Texans didn’t immediately respond Wednesday to requests for comment.
Ryans is represented by Robert E. Ammons, Evan N. Kramer and Sydney Meriwether of The Ammons Law Firm LLP.
The Texans are represented by Wesson H. Tribble, Margaret J. Graeff and Dan P. McManus of Tribble Ross.
The case is Ryans v. Houston NFL Holdings L.P. dba Houston Texans et al., case number 4:16-cv-03554, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
–Additional reporting by Rick Archer and Zachary Zagger. Editing by Rebecca Flanagan.
John is a Jacksonville native who grew up on the First Coast. He graduated from Bishop Kenny High School in 1975 and went to college at Florida State University where he completed a 4-year program in 3 years. John graduated from the Florida State University College of Business in 1978 and went straight into Florida State University College of Law. While in law school, John earned a position on the prestigious Law Review Board serving as its Business Editor. As a law student, John studied in the Oxford program. He also interned with the Florida Legislature working in the Florida House of Representatives Criminal Justice Committee. John was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1981.
John began his legal career as a law school intern in the State Attorney's Office in Jacksonville in 1981. After his internship, legendary State Attorney Ed Austin hired John as a full-time Assistant State Attorney for the Fourth Judicial Circuit (Clay, Duval, and Nassau Counties). As a prosecutor, John tried jury and non-jury trial on charges ranging from DUI to Murder.
In 1983, John moved from the State Attorney's Office to begin his career in private practice. He has practiced law for 30 years on the First Coast. For the last 20 years, John and his family have made Clay County their home.
John limits his practice to personal injury and disability cases. While there are many fine attorneys in Clay County, John is one of only a few Clay County attorneys who limit their practice to personal injury and disability cases. John takes pride in helping clients resolve injury claims in ways that avoid the stress, uncertainty, and the expense of unnecessary litigation.
John is the past President of the Clay County Bar Association and has served on the Board of the Clay County Bar Association from 2009-2013. He is an active member of the Florida Bar, and the Federal Bar of the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida. He is also a member of the American Association of Justice, the Florida Association of Justice, the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives, and the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates.
Service to the Community
John is involved in the Clay County Community serving as a member and Director of the Rotary Club of Orange Park, of the Clay County Bar Association, and the Putnam County Bar Association.
The information provided on this web site is provided for general informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as legal advice. Every case is different and requires individual attention before such advice can be given. Neither the transmission nor receipt of general advice to or from our website will constitute an attorney-client relationship.