United States Sixth Circuit

In a former assistant coach's action against the NCAA raising claims for antitrust violations, fraud and alleged breach of contract claims, summary judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) defendant's actions were not commercial in nature and did not violate the Sherman Act; 2) plaintiff's allegations of the effect of defendant's enforcement of its non-commercial rules only showed injury to plaintiff and not to a relevant coaching market as required; 3) plaintiff could not have relied on defendant's representations that they would take no further action if he quit, since plaintiff knew that defendant-university was subject to various duties by the NCAA; 4) plaintiff failed to allege a contract claim as plaintiff's complaint never gave defendant fair notice of the claim, and such a contract where both parties agree to disregard their obligation to report violations would be void ab initio as against public policy.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/09/2008
• Published 06/09/2008

Judges

• Before:  CLAY and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges;  BOYKO, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ON BRIEF:  Robert R. Furnier, Furnier & Simmonds, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant.  Edward H. Stopher, Scott A. Davidson, Boehl, Stopher & Graves, Louisville, Kentucky, Kevin G. Henry, Stephen L. Barker, Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellees.