|
Latrell Sprewell Sues the NBA
Golden State Warriors basketball player Latrell Sprewell is suing the NBA for his suspension for choking his coach, P.J. Carlesimo. In a suit filed in U.S. District Court on May 20, 1998, Sprewell claims that he was excessively punished by the team and the NBA and that the suspension has rendered him unable to earn a living. Sprewell is seeking close to $30 million in damages, including $6.4 million in lost wages.
The suit alleges that the NBA and the Golden State Warriors unfairly "conspired to deprive Mr. Sprewell of the equal protection, privileges and immunities under the laws ... because of his race, Black and African-American." Sprewell
further accuses the NBA and the team of engaging in a negative media campaign against him. "As a result, Mr. Sprewell's image and good name have been tarnished and he has been subjected to public scorn and ridicule," states the lawsuit.
Sprewell was suspended by the NBA for one year (the longest suspension in NBA history) for a December 1, 1997 incident in which the player attacked Carlesimo during practice. In addition to the NBA suspension, the team suspended Sprewell for 10 days and later terminated his $32 million contract.
ROBERT THOMPSON, JR.
Georgia Bar No. 709750
GORDON J. ROSE
Georgia Bar No. 614190
STEPHEN G. WEIZENECKER
Georgia Bar No. 746451
THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLC
2931 Piedmont Road, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30305
(404) 816-0500
Appearing Pro Hac Vice
ANDREW M. ZACKS
California Bar No. 147794
JAMES B.KRAUS
California Bar No. 184118
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW M. ZACKS
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 956-8100
ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
LATRELL F. SPREWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS,
a partnership,
and
NATIONAL BASKETBALL
ASSOCIATION,
and
PARTIES X, Y AND Z
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Latrell F. Sprewell (hereinafter "Mr. Sprewell" or "Plaintiff'), Plaintiff in the above styled action, and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, files this Complaint and further shows the Court as follows:
I. STATEMENT OF CASE.
On December 1, 1997, the Golden State Warriors ("Defendant Warriors") were engaged in a closed-door, private practice session. During the practice session, Mr. Sprewell and his coach argued and a physical altercation ensued. A few hours later, Defendant Warriors publicly announced on television that it was suspending Mr. Sprewell for ten games, a suspension that would cost Mr. Sprewell nearly $1 million. Two days later on, December 3, Defendant Warriors announced that' in addition to the ten game suspension, it was terminating Mr. Sprewell's contract which had 2 and 3/4 years remaining.
The next day, December 4, 1997, the National Basketball Association ("Defendant NBA") independently announced that, in addition to the penalties already imposed by Defendant Warriors, it was suspending Mr. Sprewell from any participation in the NBA for a period of one year. This action by Defendant NBA was and is in direct violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
("CBA") which permits punishment of a player by either his team or Defendant N13A, but not both. Never before in the history of Defendant NBA has both a team and Defendant NBA punished a player for the same offense. Mr. Sprewell did not grieve the ten game suspension by Defendant Warriors, but an arbitration was held regarding the subsequent termination of his contract and one year suspension. The Grievance Arbitrator incorporated the ten game suspension, rescinded the contract termination and modified the one year suspension from Defendant NBA to the rest of the
1997/1998 season or 64 games.
This suspension is the longest in the history of the NBA absent fixing a game or drug use, and the most severe in all professional sports for a similar offense. It is to the suspension for the 1997/1998 season and the unprecedented and illegal acts by Defendants Warriors and NBA that this Complaint is directed. Because the Grievance Arbitrator and Defendants exceeded their authority and disregarded the express and unambiguous language of the CBA, the Grievance Arbitrator's decision as to the suspension of Mr. Sprewell for the 1997/1998 season should be vacated and/or set aside. Defendants conspired to violate Mr. Sprewell's civil rights and violated his freedom of contract, because of his race, which is Black and African-American. Defendants conduct was also
in violation of the Antitrust Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Business
and Professions Code.
II. PARTIES.
1.
Mr. Sprewell resides in Alameda County, California.
2.
Defendant Golden State Warriors is a partnership doing business in the State of California
at 1011 Broadway, Oakland, California 94607. Defendant Warriors may be served through its
owner, Christopher Cohan, 1011 Broadway, Oakland, California 94607.
3.
Defendant National Basketball Association is a New York unincorporated association doing
business in the State of California. Defendant NBA's principal place of business is at Olympic
Tower, 645 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10022. Defendant NBA may be served through
NBA Commissioner David Stem at Olympic Tower, 645 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York
10022.
4.
Mr. Sprewell states that other persons, corporations, and/or entities may have participated
in and/or may be liable to him for the matters described herein and Mr. Sprewell designates these
parties as Defendant Parties X, Y, and Z. Defendant Parties X, Y, and Z are subject to the
jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Sprewell will amend his Complaint after their identities are known to him. Such parties may include employees, principals, stockholders, officers, directors, agents,
representatives, independent contractors and/or joint venturers of one or more of Defendants.
III. JURISDICTION
5.
Mr. Sprewell brings this action pursuant to and under the provisions of Section 301 of the
Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended (29 U.S.C. Section 185) (hereinafter "LMRA");
the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America; 42
U.S.C. Section 1981 (hereinafter "Section 1981"); 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3) (hereinafter "Section 1985");
Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, as amended, (15 U.S.C. Section 15), the Sherman Antitrust Act, as
amended (15 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq)(collectively hereinafter "the Antitrust Act"); and pursuant to and
under the laws and Constitution of the State of California, Business and Professions Code Section
17200 et seq., and Civil Code Section 51.5 with respect to his claims of breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, duty of good faith and fair dealing, unfair business practices, violations of civil
rights, punitive damages, and expenses of litigation.
6.
Jurisdiction of this matter is conferred upon the Court by Section 301 of the LMRA and 28
U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1337. Supplemental jurisdiction over State law claims is conferred upon this Court
by 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.
7.
At all times set forth herein, Defendants were and are subject to the provisions of the LMRA, Section 1981, Section 1985, the Antitrust Act, the Constitution of the United States and laws and Constitution of the State of California.
8.
At all times set forth herein, Mr. Sprewell was and is protected by the provisions of the
LMRA and the Antitrust Act. Mr. Sprewell is a member of the protected class Black and African-
American, under Section 1981 and Section 1985.
9.
Defendants intentionally, willfully and/or with reckless indifference breached their Collective
Bargaining Agreement and Uniform Player Contract with Mr. Sprewell and his union, National
Basketball Player's Association ("NBPA"), in violation of the LMRA, Section 198 1, Section 1985
and the Antitrust Act by subjecting Mr. Sprewell to multiple punishments, including, but not limited
to, (1) a ten game suspension by Defendant Warriors, which is a nearly $1 million fine, (2) a
rescinding of his Uniform Player Contract by Defendant Warriors, (3) a one year suspension from
Defendant NBA by NBA Commissioner David Stem ("NBA Commissioner Stem"), who is
Caucasian, and (4) a suspension from the NBA 1997/1998 season by Defendant NBA, by and
through Arbitrator Feerick. Defendant Warriors imposed multiple punishments upon Mr. Sprewell.
Further, both Defendant Warriors and Defendant NBA imposed multiple punishments upon Mr.
Sprewell in breach of Article XXXI, Section 14(c) of the CBA, which provides that "a player may
be subjected to disciplinary action for just cause by his Team or by the Commissioner." [emphasis added]. Arbitrator Feerick exceeded his authority and disregarded the express and unambiguous language of the CBA by allowing the multiple punishments and imposing his own brand of industrial
justice in the form of a suspension for the 1997/1998 season. Defendants intentionally, unfairly and
unreasonably acted in restraint of trade, have interfered with Mr. Sprewell's freedom of contract and
conspired to deprive Mr. Sprewell of the equal protection, privileges and immunities under the laws
of the United States and the State of California because of his race, Black and African-American.
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
10.
On or about September 18, 1995, Defendant NBA, as the exclusive representative of the
owners of the various professional basketball teams, entered into the CBA with NBPA, the union
representing the professional players in Defendant NBA's league. Defendant NBA has a virtual
monopoly over professional basketball. NBA professional players can only play on NBA member
teams at NBA sanctioned events. The CBA governing the relationship between the parties is
attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and incorporated by reference herein. The CBA contains a pro forma
Uniform Player Contract which member teams must use for employing a player. See Exhibit "1", Article II. A majority of the team owners and the Defendant NBA are Caucasian while a majority of the players, including Mr. Sprewell, are Black and African-American.
11.
On July 22, 1996, Mr. Sprewell and Defendant Warriors entered into a National Basketball
Association Uniform Player Contract ("Contract"). The Contract, which was later approved and
signed by Defendant NBA, is attached hereto as Exhibit "2" and incorporated by reference herein. Defendant NBA drafted a majority of the terms of Mr. Sprewell's Contract, Exhibit "2". In exchange for his services, Mr. Sprewell was to be paid $7 million for the 1996/1997 season, $7.7
million for the 1997/1998 season, $8.3 million for the 1998/1999 season and $9 million for the
1999/2000 season. The Contract has a duration of four years.
12.
Mr. Sprewell performed under the Contract and, despite a losing season by Defendant
Warriors, he continued to receive accolades for his performance and posted statistics which
demonstrated his high skill and ability as a player. Mr. Sprewell became team captain of Defendant
Warriors and a leader of his team.
13.
While Mr. Sprewell may have been involved in a few minor infractions during his career,
he has not been involved in infractions such as using performance enhancing drugs, gambling or
"fixing a game."
14.
During the 1997/1998 season, P.J. Carlesimo ("Mr. Carlesimo"), who is Caucasian, took over
as head coach of Defendant Warriors. Mr. Carlesimo was presented to the public under the banner
"No More Mr. Nice Guy." In advertisements, Mr. Carlesimo was dressed like a gangster and portrayed as a coach who enjoyed taunting and screaming at his team. Mr. Carlesimo was and is known to be an abusive and caustic coach who frequently uses foul and threatening language
towards the players on his team.
15.
On December 1, 1997, Defendant Warriors were engaged in a closed-door, private practice
at the team's facility located in Oakland, California. During this practice, Mr. Carlesimo and Mr.
Sprewell argued and a physical altercation occurred between Mr. Carlesimo and Mr. Sprewell. In
his testimony during arbitration, Mr. Carlesimo portrayed this incident as "minor" and of no
significance. Immediately following this altercation, Defendant Warriors made a public
announcement that Mr. Sprewell had tried to severely injure his coach, which was untrue. Defendant
Warriors also announced that Mr. Sprewell was suspended for ten games. Defendant Warriors
staged the public announcement by General Manager Garry St. Jean and Mr. Carlesimo at a press
conference during prime time (9:00 P.M.) television hours. In addition, Defendant Warriors sent a
letter to Mr. Sprewell which memorialized the ten game suspension. The letter from Garry St. Jean
(General Manager of Defendant Warriors) to Latrell Sprewell, dated December 1, 1997, is attached
hereto as Exhibit "3" and incorporated by reference herein.
16.
On December 1, 1997, Mr. Sprewell accepted and did not grieve a ten game suspension,
which was a nearly $1 million fine, and publicly apologized for the incident.
17.
Following the ten game suspension, Defendant Warriors moved to trade Mr. Sprewell to
another team. Because of the Salary Cap rules under the CBA, only two teams could accept Mr.
Sprewell. However, the trade or waiver of Mr. Sprewell's contract could only occur if approved by
Defendant NBA and within forty-eight hours.
18.
Instead of waiting for approval, on December 3, 1997, Defendant Warriors terminated Mr.
Sprewell's Contract which had another 2 and 3/4 years remaining. Defendant Warriors terminated
Mr. Sprewell without an interview to get his side of the story. The letter sent to Mr. Sprewell stated:
"This letter will serve as written notice that the Golden State Warriors is exercising its night to
terminate your Player Contract dated July 22, 1996, as amended." This letter is attached hereto as
Exhibit "4" and incorporated by reference herein.
19.
In addition, in direct violation of Article XXXI, Section 14(c) of the CBA, on December 4, 1997, Defendant NBA disciplined Mr. Sprewell for the same incident. In the letter, Defendant NBA stated that
you are hereby suspended for a period of one year commencing as of this date .... As
a result of this suspension, you are prohibited from attending or participating in NBA
activities, including but not limited to, games, practices, team meetings, or workouts
through and including December 3, 1998.
It has also come to our attention that the Golden State Warriors have
requested waivers on you from the other NBA teams for the purpose of terminating
your Uniform Player Contract. Please be advised that your suspension by the NBA
will continue in full force and effect regardless of whether your Contract is claimed
under the waiver procedure by another NBA team or whether your contract is
terminated. [emphasis added]
The letter from Russell T. Granik, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Operating Officer of Defendant NBA, to Latrell Sprewell, dated December 4, 1997 is attached hereto as Exhibit "5" and incorporated by reference herein. This letter prohibits Mr. Sprewell from working as a professional basketball
player within the United States for an entire year and successfully blocked any chance for Mr.
Sprewell to contract with another team during this time.
20.
Thus, Mr. Sprewell was subjected to multiple discipline for the same offense: (1) a ten game
suspension, which is a nearly $1 million fine, (2) cancellation of his Contract, and (3) a suspension
from Defendant NBA for one year. Such multiple punishment by both Defendant NBA and
Defendant Warriors violated Article XXXI, Section 14(c) of the CBA which provides that "a player
may be subjected to disciplinary action for just cause by his Team or by the Commissioner."
[emphasis added]. Exhibit "1". Further, Mr. Sprewell had no notice or knowledge that such severe
and multiple punishment could occur under the CBA.
21.
The Contract termination was the most severe punishment Defendant Warriors could impose.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Warriors imposed such punishment to free itself of its
financial commitment to Mr. Sprewell and to gain $8.3 million in Salary Cap room in the 1998/1999
free agent market. See Exhibit "1", Article VII, Section 2 regarding salary cap.
22.
On December 4, 1997, Mr. Sprewell with the assistance of his union, the NBPA, filed
grievances against Defendant Warriors and Defendant NBA. Said grievances were submitted to
arbitration pursuant to Article XXXI of the CBA.
23.
On or about March 4, 1998, the Grievance Arbitrator, John D. Feerick ("Arbitrator Feerick"),
who is Caucasian, issued his Opinion and Award ("Opinion"). The Opinion is attached hereto as
Exhibit "6" and incorporated by reference herein. In his Opinion, Arbitrator Feerick incorporated
the ten game suspension by Defendant Warriors, reinstated Mr. Sprewell's Contract and modified
Mr. Sprewell's suspension by Defendant NBA so that it lasts until the end of the 1997/1998 season.
The modification deprives Mr. Sprewell of his $6.4 million salary for the 1997/1998 season and
prevents him from attending or participating in any NBA activities, including, but not limited to,
games, practices, team meetings or workouts. Such a suspension will continue even if Mr. Sprewell
is traded to another team. See Exhibit "5". Consequently, the punishment in the Opinion far exceeds
the authority of the Grievance Arbitrator and disregards the express and unambiguous language of
Article XXXI, Section 14(c) of the CBA because either Defendant Warriors or Defendant NBA, can
impose punishment, but not both. The Opinion does not draw its essence from the CBA and should
be set aside and/or vacated.
24.
Prior to and following the release of the Opinion, Defendant Warriors and Defendant NBA
engaged in a negative media campaign against Mr. Sprewell. In this negative media campaign, Mr. Sprewell is portrayed in a false and negative light. As a result, Mr. Sprewell's image and good name have been tarnished and he has been subjected to public scorn and ridicule.
25.
Upon information and belief, the decisions of NBA Commissioner Stem and Arbitrator
Feerick were tainted by concerns regarding the Defendants and other team owners' authority over
the players. The team owners recently voted to renegotiate the soon expiring CBA. Defendants
sought to make an example of Mr. Sprewell by, among other things, "blacklisting" Mr. Sprewell.
Further, Defendants and the team owners' actions will have a chilling effect on the upcoming CBA
negotiations. Defendant NBA and its members, who are mostly Caucasian, thereby hope to extract
concessions from the players, a majority of whom are African-American. Thus, Defendants' conduct
was, in effect, a power play by Defendants and team owners against the players in which Mr. Sprewell was used as a pawn to sacrifice by Defendants and other team owners for greater gain.
26.
This punishment is the harshest ever imposed on any professional athlete, not only in basketball, but also in all professional sports for an offense unrelated to drug use or "fixing" a game. See Exhibit "7", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, which lists the history of
punishments imposed in Defendant NBA and other professional sports leagues. Never in the history
of Defendant NBA have both a team and Defendant NBA imposed penalties for the same offense.
Therefore, the suspension for one year by Defendant NBA and the suspension for the 1997/1998
season by Arbitrator Feerick do not comport with the past practice of Defendants and are arbitrary
and capricious.
27.
Mr. Sprewell has suffered and continues to suffer damages from the conduct of Defendants,
including, but not limited to, loss of the 1997/1998 season at a cost of $6.4 million; loss of playing
time and opportunity during his peak gaming years; lost opportunity to post statistics which reflect his ability and value to teams in the NBA for the 1997/1998 season; lost ability to make, develop
and seek contracts during the 1997/1998 season; prevention from seeking a trade to another team;
damage to Mr. Sprewell's image and good name; and deprivation of Mr. Sprewell's constitutional
rights to freedom of contract and fundamental notions of due process and fairness.
28.
Mr. Sprewell suffered and continues to suffer damage from the impact of the suspension
during his peak earning years. Mr. Sprewell has played professional basketball for 6 seasons. His
bargaining position as a veteran player, as it relates to future negotiations regarding player contracts,
is harmed because he is forbidden to play during the remainder of the 1997/1998 NBA season.
Specifically, he is denied the opportunity to post statistics which reflect his ability and value to teams
in the Defendant NBA. These statistics are calculated from his performance in NBA games wherein
his actions on the court are converted to averages per game, per season, per career. These
performances are irreplaceable and valuable in that they correlate directly to his future earnings and
marketability. Furthermore, Plaintiff has been totally denied the opportunity to participate in his
chosen profession and to develop his skills in that season.
29.
Another form of damage which Mr. Sprewell suffered and continues to suffer as a direct
result of the suspension is the lost ability to make, develop and seek contracts during the 1997/1998
season and beyond. He is unable to market himself to other teams and to sportswear vendors, such
as Nike, Addidas, etc., or to seek endorsements of various products which could provide him with
mandatory compensation and name and physical recognition which could lead to other contracts.
30.
Mr. Sprewell's image and good name are also damaged by this suspension. The suspension
takes away his ability to clear his name and show himself to be a leader in Defendant NBA. As a
professional athlete, his image and good name are a part of his marketability and a valuable
commodity both presently and in the future. His image and good name are intangible qualities
which shapes public perception. The indelible blot on his image and good name created by Defendants' wrongful conduct has created a negative image of Mr. Sprewell and has damaged his valuable public image and the public perception of him.
31.
As a further result of Defendants' conduct, Mr. Sprewell has suffered and continues to suffer
damages, including, but not limited to, loss of income for the 1997/1998 season which is $6.4
million in salary, and loss of an endorsement contract with Converse valued at $500,000 to $700,000
annually, and other damages to be proved at trial.
32.
The public interest in fairness, equity and due process under the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of California demands that Mr. Sprewell not be subjected to
multiple punishments for the same offense. He was punished both by Defendant Warriors, (ten game
suspension, which is a nearly $1 million fine, and contract termination) and by Defendant NBA (one year suspension from the NBA) for the same conduct. Further, Arbitrator Feerick imposed his own notion of industrial justice by allowing multiple punishment. Fundamental fairness and due process
demand that the punishment should fit the offense. Further, Mr. Sprewell's freedom of contract and right to earn a living were wrongfully and unconstitutionally taken from him. Mr. Sprewell cannot participate in my NBA functions thus he cannot work and earn a living for himself and his family. Such a restraint on trade and freedom of contract is a per se violation of Mr. Sprewell's Federal and
State Constitutional rights.
33.
Mr. Sprewell has been "blacklisted" in that he has been prevented from working in his chosen
profession. Moreover, because he is suspended, he cannot generate an income in the United States
playing professional basketball with any NBA team for the 1997/1998 season. Such a restraint of trade violates his right of freedom of contract and unfairly restrains trade in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the public policy of the State of California and the Antitrust Act. Further, Defendants conspired to deprive Mr. Sprewell of equal
protection, privilege and immunities under the law because of his race, which is African-American and Black.
COUNT ONE
VIOLATION OF SECTION 301 OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT (29 U.S.C. Section 185) ("LMRA")
34.
Mr. Sprewell adopts, alleges and affirms all allegations and averments contained in the above
and forgoing paragraphs of this Complaint.
35.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, Mr. Sprewell was and is protected by the provisions
of the LMRA, as an employee and party to the CBA and Uniform Player Contract.
36.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants were and are subject to the provisions of
the LMRA.
37.
By the conduct described herein and above, Defendants violated the LMRA by breaching the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Arbitrator Feerick and Defendants exceeded their authority and
disregarded the express and unambiguous terms of the CBA. The Opinion manifests an infidelity
to the obligation of the arbitrator. The Opinion imposes additional requirements that are not
expressly provided in the Agreement. The Opinion is without rational support and cannot be
rationally derived from the terms of the CBA. Moreover, the Opinion alters the plain and
unambiguous contractual language of the CBA. The Opinion and the punishment imposed
thereunder do not draw their essence from the CBA or the past practices of the NBA. Therefore, the
Opinion should be set aside and/or vacated as to the suspension of Mr. Sprewell for the 1997/1998 season.
38.
Defendants conduct in breach of the CBA is a repudiation of the CBA, upon information and
belief, Defendants interfered with the arbitral procedure and seriously undermined the integrity of
the arbitral process.
39.
As a result of Defendants' conduct in breach of Mr. Sprewell's individual rights under the CBA, Mr. Sprewell suffered and continues to suffer general, special, actual and compensatory damages, in an amount to be proven at trial for which Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
COUNT TWO
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 ("SECTION 1981")
40.
Mr. Sprewell adopts, alleges and affirms all allegations and averments contained in the above
and forgoing paragraphs of this Complaint.
41.
Defendants intentionally interfered with Mr. Sprewell's freedom to make and enforce
contracts in violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United
States of America and Section 1981.
42.
Defendants' conduct was based upon Mr. Sprewell's race, African-American and Black, in violation of Section 1981. Historically, the management of Defendant NBA are white. A majority of the management and owners of Defendant NBA teams such as Defendant Golden State Warriors
are white. However, a majority of the players are African-American and Black, like Mr. Sprewell.
43.
Upon information and belief, African-American and Black players, like Mr. Sprewell, are
punished more frequently and receive harsher punishment for any infractions than their white
counterparts. For example, Tom Chambers of the Phoenix Suns, a white player, received no
punishment for a similar incident. Further, many African-American and Black players, including Mr. Sprewell, have expanded provisions in their Uniform Player Contract whereby their teams have greater power to deny them their salary. See Exhibit "7" provision 16(a)(1). Thus, African-American and Black players like Mr. Sprewell are most commonly punished and receive harsher punishment
including salary denial than their white counterparts.
44.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Sprewell would not have received the same treatment for
the same offense, if he were a white player.
45.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Mr. Sprewell suffered and continues to suffer general,
special, actual and compensatory damages, in an amount to be proven at trial for which Defendants
are jointly and severally liable.
COUNT THREE
VIOLATION 0F 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3) ("SECTION 1985")
46.
Mr. Sprewell adopts, alleges and affirms all allegations and averments contained in the above
and forgoing paragraphs of this Complaint.
47.
Defendants, as separate entities by and through their agents, intentionally conspired for the purpose of depriving Mr. Sprewell of the protection, privileges, and immunities under the laws, by inter alia, interfering with Mr. Sprewell's freedom to make and enforce contracts in violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Further, such conduct was intended to discriminate against Mr. Sprewell based upon his race, Black
and African-American, in violation of Section 1985(3).
48.
Defendants conspired to deprive Mr. Sprewell of his rights guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 as alleged herein.
49.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Mr. Sprewell suffered and continues to suffer general
special, actual and compensatory damages, in an amount to be proven at trial for all of which Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
COUNT FOUR
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT
(19 U.S.C. Sections 1 ET. SEQ.) ("ANTITRUST ACT")
50.
Mr. Sprewell adopts, alleges and affirms all allegations and averments contained in the above
and forgoing paragraphs of this Complaint.
51.
Defendants were and are subject to the provisions of the Antitrust Act.
52.
Defendants intentionally, illegally, unfairly and unreasonably acted in concert with on another and others in restraint of trade by exceeding their authority under the CBA and imposing multiple punishments upon Mr. Sprewell and by preventing Mr. Sprewell from working in his
chosen field and from seeking or making other contracts during the 1997/1998 season.
53.
Defendants' conduct and restraint on trade affects non-parties to the CBA and restricts the business market for Mr. Sprewell's services. Further, Defendants conspired to encourage others not to deal with Mr. Sprewell. Therefore, Defendants' conduct was and is a per se violation of the
Antitrust Act.
54.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Mr. Sprewell suffered and continues to suffer general
special, actual, and compensatory damages, in an amount to be proven at trial for all of which Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
COUNT FIVE
INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS
55.
Mr. Sprewell adopts, alleges and affirms all allegations and averments contained in the above
and forgoing paragraphs of this Complaint.
56.
By the conduct described herein and above, Defendants have negligently, intentionally
maliciously and wantonly interfered with the business relations of Mr. Sprewell.
57.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Mr. Sprewell suffered and continues to suffer general
special, actual and compensatory damages, in an amount to be proven at trial for all of which Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
COUNT SIX
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
58.
Mr. Sprewell adopts, alleges and affirms all allegations and averments contained in the above and forgoing paragraphs of this Complaint.
59.
By the conduct described herein and above, Defendants have intentionally, maliciously, recklessly and/or wantonly interfered with the contracts of Mr. Sprewell as described above.
60.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Mr. Sprewell suffered and continues to suffer general, special, actual and compensatory damages, for all of which Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
COUNT SEVEN
BREACH OF CONTRACT
61.
Mr. Sprewell adopts, alleges and affirms all allegations and averments contained in the above and forgoing paragraphs of this Complaint.
62.
Defendant Warriors, Defendant NBA and Mr. Sprewell had written agreements contained in Mr. Sprewell's Uniform Player Contract. Defendants and Mr. Sprewell signed the Uniform Play Contract and were parties thereto.
63.
Defendants breached the Uniform Player Contract with Mr. Sprewell as described above.
64.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Mr. Sprewell suffered and continues to suffer general
special, actual and compensatory damages, in am amount to be proven at trial for all of which Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
COUNT EIGHT
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DUTY OF LOYALTY
AND DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
65.
Mr. Sprewell adopts, alleges and affirms all allegations and averments contained in the above
and forgoing paragraphs of this Complaint.
66.
Defendants owe and owed a fiduciary duty, duty of loyalty and duty of good faith and fair dealing to Mr. Sprewell pursuant to their employer/employee relationship and arising out of their contracts with Mr. Sprewell, including, but not limited to, Mr. Sprewell's Uniform Player Contract and the CBA.
67.
Defendants breached their fiduciary duty, duty of loyalty and duty of good faith and fair dealing as described above.
68.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Mr. Sprewell suffered and continues to suffer general special, actual and compensatory damages, in an amount to be proven at trial for all of which Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
COUNT NINE
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
69.
Mr. Sprewell adopts, alleges and affirms all allegations and averments contained in the above
and forgoing paragraphs of this Complaint.
70.
Defendant NBA and Defendant Warriors conspired and continue to conspire with each other and others against Mr. Sprewell as alleged herein and above, including, but not limited to depriving Mr. Sprewell of his freedom of contract and interfering with his business relations.
71.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Mr. Sprewell suffered and continues to suffer general
special, actual and compensatory damages, in an amount to be proven at trial for all of which Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
COUNT TEN
UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
(CAL. CIVIL CODE Section 51.5)
72.
Mr. Sprewell adopts, alleges and affirms all allegations and averments contained in the above and forgoing paragraphs of this Complaint.
73.
Defendants are business establishments within the definition of California Civil Code Section 51.5. Defendant NBA and Defendant Warriors discriminated against, boycotted, blacklisted, refused to buy from, sell to, or trade with Mr. Sprewell because of his race and color.
74.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Mr. Sprewell suffered and continues to suffer (general, special, actual and compensatory damages, in an amount to be proven at trial for all of which Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
COUNT ELEVEN
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE
(CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE Section 17200 et seg. and Section 17500)
75.
Mr. Sprewell adopts, alleges and affirms all allegations and averments contained in the above
and forgoing paragraphs of this Complaint.
76.
Plaintiffs bring this action under the State of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 on behalf of the general public and as a private party affected by the acts described in this Complaint.
77.
At all times relevant herein, Defendants were conducting business under the laws of the
United States of America and the State of California.
78.
As alleged herein, Defendant have engaged in a pattern and practice of unfair and illegal practices in violation of Sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 of the Business and Professions Code.
79.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Mr. Sprewell suffered and continues to suffer general,
special, actual and compensatory damages, in an amount to be proven at trial for all of which Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
COUNT TWELVE
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
80.
Mr. Sprewell adopts, alleges and affirms all allegations and averments contained in the above
and forgoing paragraphs of this Complaint.
81.
Defendants' conduct was intentional, grossly negligent, reckless, willful, wanton, malicious
oppressive, and/or unmindful of obligations to Mr. Sprewell and/or exhibited that entire want of car
which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences so as to warrant the
imposition of punitive and/or liquidated damages, including treble damages under the Antitrust Act, in an amount sufficient to punish, penalize, and/or deter Defendants, for which Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
COUNT THIRTEEN
EXPENSES OF LITIGATION AND ATTORNEYS' FEES
82.
Mr. Sprewell adopts, alleges and affirms all allegations and averments contained in the above and forgoing paragraphs of this Complaint.
Defendants violated the LMRA and the Antitrust Act. Therefore, Mr. Sprewell may recover the expenses of this litigation including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, for all of which Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
84.
Defendants violated Section 1981 and Section 1985. Therefore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, Mr. Sprewell may recover the expenses of this litigation including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, for all of which Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
85.
Defendants violated California Civil Code Section 51.5. Therefore, pursuant to California Civil
Code Section 52(a), Mr. Sprewell may recover attorney's fees for which Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
86.
Defendants' conduct has been in bad faith, stubbornly litigious and/or caused Mr. Sprewell unnecessary trouble and expense, and on account thereof, Mr. Sprewell is entitled to recover the expenses of this litigation including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, for all of which Defendant are jointly and severally liable.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Sprewell makes the following demand:
(a) That process be issued and served as provided by law, requiring Defendants to appear and answer or face judgment;
(b) That as to Count One, the Opinion be set aside and/or vacated as to the suspension for the 1997/1998 season;
(c) That as to Count One, Mr. Sprewell have and recover judgment in an amount to be determined at trial by the finder of fact against Defendants as general, special, actual, liquidated and/or compensatory damages;
(d) That as to Count Two, Mr. Sprewell have and recover judgment in an amount to be determined at trial by the finder of fact against Defendants as general, special, actual, punitive liquidated and/or compensatory damages;
(e) That as to Count Three, Mr. Sprewell have and recover judgment in an amount to be determined at trial by the finder of fact against Defendants as general, special, actual, punitive liquidated, treble, and/or compensatory damages;
(f) That as to Count Four, Mr. Sprewell have and recover judgment in an amount to be determined at trial by the finder of fact against Defendants as general, special, actual, punitive liquidated compensatory damages, and liable damages;
(g) That as to Count Five, Mr. Sprewell have and recover judgment in an amount to be determined at trial by the finder of fact against Defendants as general, special, actual, liquidate and/or compensatory damages;
(h) That as to Count Six, Mr. Sprewell have and recover judgment in an amount to be determined at trial by the finder of fact against Defendants at trial as general, special, punitive
actual, liquidated and/or compensatory damages;
(k) That as to Count Seven, Mr. Sprewell have and recover judgment in an amount to be determined at trial by the finder of fact against Defendants at trial as general, special, punitive actual, liquidated and/or compensatory damages;
(j) That as to Count Eight, Mr. Sprewell have and recover judgment in an amount to be determined at trial by the finder of fact against Defendants at trial as general, special, punitive
actual, liquidated and/or compensatory damages;
(k) That as to Count. Nine, Mr. Sprewell have and recover judgment in an amount to b
determined at trial by the finder of fact against Defendants at trial as general, special, punitive
actual, liquidated and/or compensatory damages;
(l) That as to Count Ten, Mr. Sprewell have and recover judgment in an amount to be
determined at trial by the finder of fact against Defendants at trial as general, treble, special, punitive
actual, liquidated and/or compensatory damages, and attorneys fees as determined by the Court;
(m) That as to Count Eleven, the Court order Defendants to be enjoined from all unfair and illegal
practices and that the Court restore to Mr. Sprewell all his interests in any money or property acquired by means of such unfair competition;
(n) That as to Count Twelve, Mr. Sprewell have and recover judgment in an amount to be
determined at trial by the finder of fact as punitive and liquidated damages;
(o) That as to Count Thirteen, Mr. Sprewell have and recover judgment in an amount to be
determined at trial for expenses of this litigation, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees an
costs; and
(n) That Mr. Sprewell have such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
MR. SPREWELL DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY
Respectfully submitted, this 20th day of May, 1998.
ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF
By: /s/
ROBERT THOMPSON, JR.
Georgia Bar No. 709750
GORDON J. ROSE
Georgia Bar No. 614190
STEPHEN G. WEIZENECKER
Georgia Bar No. 746451
THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLC
2931 Piedmont Road, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30305
(404) 816-0500
By: /s/
ANDREW M. ZACKS
California Bar No. 147794
JAMES B. KRAUS
California Bar No. 184118
LAW OFFICES
OF ANDREW M. ZACKS
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 956-8100
|
