Okay, I've read through the complaint. Get ready for my first TOC-type post.
Initial thoughts:
- We really need to see the two contracts, and they weren't attached. But without knowing specifically what was in the contracts, we can't know whether Lucas (allegedly) breached his contract.
- Their basis for UM having jurisdiction in the state of Wisconsin is laughably weak, and predicated on them proving the facts of their case
- They also allege that UM has a "broader pattern" of doing this, say this wasn't an "isolated event," and even go so far as to mention a "Student-Athlete B" from another DI school (Lucas is "Student-Athlete A" in the Complaint). I'm guessing the other was from another Big10 school, but they are really laying it on thick.
- Courts are going to hate the non-compete aspects of this, and I am also getting the hunch that his mother wanted him to transfer because she didn't like that UW pushed him into the contract without representation.
12/2/24: Lucas signed the agreements
- The contract with UW was a Memorandum of Understanding, meaning an agreement to make a future contract, so to speak.
- Both the MOU and the contract with the collective, were contingent on the House settlement, meaning that Lucas would receive NIL money once the settlement went into effect.
- Lucas also received money on 12/2/2, when the agreements were signed (this will be argued that it is consideration)
- Part of the deal was that Lucas was to start performing on the agreements immediately. (Edit: He was filmed in a video used for PR/social media)
- The agreements also allegedly required that Lucas would grant UW an exclusive license to his NIL rights for two years - meaning that he could not give his NIL rights to another "institution" for those two years without breaching the contract
- He was also required to repeatedly make certain warranties and representations regarding his commitment to UW and the football program, and he couldn't make any other agreements that would conflict with these agreements, he wouldn't enroll in another school, and neither he nor anyone in his family/representatives would contact any other school
Transfer Timeline:
12/9/24: Transfer portal open
12/12/24: Lucas participated in UW promo videos describing his most memorable play of 2024 season
12/13/24: Lucas's mother received copy of UW contract PER HER REQUEST (so Lucas had to sign on the day they presented to him, without being able to take it to his mom / attorney / representation???)
12/15/24: Lucas goes home to Florida, but mentions to position coach before he leaves that he is being contacted by other SCHOOLS (plural)
12/17/24: Lucas asks to be put in portal
12/18/24: Lucas asks AGAIN to be put in portal, included family reason. Over next few days, UW tries to talk to Lucas, mom, and hs coach, but they don't want to talk to UW about being convinced to stay, they just want him to be put in portal. UW refuses on the basis that he signed a binding contract.
12/21/24: After another call with Lucas and mom, mom asked for ANOTHER copy of contract. They email UW contract. Note that both times they do not send her collective contract. UW notes that throughout these discussions they continue to remind Lucas of his contractual obligations. UW also alleges that on this day, Lucas's relative talked to a coach and gave him a different reason for him wanting to transfer (not family-related).
12/28/24: Transfer portal closed
1/13/25: Lucas unenrolls from UW
Miami-Related Allegations (i.e., not proven):
- Dec 2024 in-person visit (when Lucas was home), which Lucas's relative communicated to UW coach on 12/21 call
- UM reps agreed to pay Lucas if he left UW and came to UM, and it was more than UW was giving him
- UM facilitated Lucas's enrollment after transfer deadline passed
- This is a pattern because we have done this with another player at another school
Now, can they PROVE any of this? Can they satisfy the elements of tortious interference? I won't get into jurisdiction because we've already 12(b)(6)'d it.
1. First, they have to prove that both plaintiffs had valid, EXISTING contracts with Lucas. This is a BIG hurdle. We've talked about that.
2. If they get through that, then they have to prove that UM and the representatives in the facts here even had knowledge of the contracts. Good luck with that!
3. Okay, then show that UM intentionally and UNJUSTLY induced Lucas to breach. As i said above, courts are not going to like the noncompete aspects of this. Plus, the contracts relied on a settlement that HADN'T OCCURRED YET! And kids transfer all the time. Yikes.
4. Then of course if you satisfy the first three, then you get to trying to prove Lucas breached the contract, which maybe is the best shot they've got, but they aren't innocent here.
5. Last, you have damages. Interestingly, they don't name a number, but they do keep stressing how high the amounts are and how valuable Lucas is...
I wouldn't want to be representing UW right now. That's my assessment. It's an uphill battle.
3.
www.documentcloud.org
