Romo's Fantasy Event v NFL

7/24/2019 Romo's Fantasy Event v NFL

1/21


2/21

Plaintiffs Second Amended Petition Page 2

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff seeks an amount of

damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

6. Venue in Dallas County is proper pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE

15.002(a)(1) because a substantial portion of the acts or omissions giving rise to this lawsuit

occurred in Dallas County, Texas.

7. All parties to this matter are subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court by either

specific or general personal jurisdiction, and their joinder in this case does not offend traditional

notions of fair play and substantial justice. This case results from their activities in the State of

Texas or targeting the State of Texas.

IV. Facts

A. Summary.

8. This case is about the NFLs blatant and premeditated sabotage of an event

designed to bring together the very people who are the backbone of the NFLthe players and the

fans. Under an assumed name, The Fan Expo created The National Fantasy Football Convention

(NFFC), an organization formed to facilitate fanand player interaction at an unprecedented scale

prior to the start of the 2015 NFL season. The three-day event was slated to be held at a convention

facility in Las Vegas that is a part of the Venetian Resort. Months before the event, the NFL, with

full knowledge of the events location, contracted with the NFFC so that the NFLs personnel and

media team could appear at the event. The NFL wanted to promote their own media personalities

to NFFC attendees and capture footage with the NFLselite players to utilize on behalf of the NFL

for the upcoming season. However, just weeks before the inaugural event, the NFL placed a series

of intimidating phone calls to players through their families, their agents, and the NFL Players

Association (NFLPA), threatening that the players would be fined and potentially suspended


3/21


from the NFL if they participated in the event. Through these actions, the NFL tortiously interfered

with the NFFCs contracts with NFL playersas well as with the fans and participants who had

planned and paid for tickets, travel, and hotel accommodations in order to attend the event. As a

direct result of the malicious and groundless threats made by the NFL, numerous players and media

personnel withdrew their participation from the convention, and it became impossible for the

NFFC to execute the July 2015 event. Further, the NFL itself breached its contracts with the NFFC

by canceling the appearances of the NFL personnel and media team who were scheduled to appear

at the event. The NFLs actions reek of hypocrisy, given the NFLs position on other, similar

events, their approval of partnerships between NFL franchises and casinos, and their own

promotional usage of NFL players and their likenesses for the benefit of their own events.

Accordingly, by these actions, the NFFC seeks to recover its substantial damages suffered as a

result of the NFLs deliberate interference.

B. Introduction.

9. For decades, NFL fans have watched football in person and on television. However,

the rise of fantasy footballwhere fans can draft their own team and compete against their family

and friendshas increased NFL ticket sales and game viewing to a far greater level. Until the

NFFC was formed, there was not an organized, national event for fantasy football fans to connect

directly with the NFL players.

10. In early 2015, Tony Romo, though a company he owns, partnered with a Dallas

entrepreneur and a team of fantasy football experts to form the NFFC. In March 2015, the NFFC

announced that its inaugural event would take place on July 10-12, 2015. The family-friendly event

was to be held at a convention facility in Las Vegas that is a part of the Venetian Resort. Upon

information and belief, the facility is owed by the Las Vegas Sands Corporation. The convention


4/21


facility is not licensed for gambling and is not part of a casino.

11. The NFFC experience was designed to give NFL fans the chance to meet current

and former NFL stars, as well as media personalities and football experts, live and in person

through keynotes, panel discussions, question-and-answer sessions, autograph opportunities,

photo ops, games, exhibits, and drafts.

12. The expansive list of players committed to appear at the event included superstars

such as Tony Romo, Odell Beckham, Jr., Rob Gronkowski, Dez Bryant, Julio Jones, LeVeon

Bell, Jeremy Maclin, Jamaal Charles, DeMarco Murray, Alshon Jeffery, Eddie Lacy, Randall

Cobb, and Antonio Brown. In total, nearly one hundred players were scheduled to appear

throughout the event.

C. At first, the NFL supported the NFFC.

13. When Tony Romo first announced the event, fans and media alike were supportive

and excited about the NFFC. NFL players enthusiastically accepted offers to appear at this

groundbreaking event.

14.

Moreover, the NFL was expressly supportive. As the event gained momentum, the

NFFC needed a fantasy football expert to serve as an event co-host. The NFFC contacted Michael

Fabiano (Fabiano), the Senior Fantasy Analyst for NFL.com and the NFL Network. Fabiano

indicated that he would have to seek approval from the NFL to serve as the host of an event. On

March 23, 2015, with the express approval of Tom Brady, a Vice President of the NFL, Fabiano

signed a contract with the Plaintiff whereby he agreed to appear at the Plaintiffs event and work

as the event host. Fabiano signed the contract in his capacity as Senior Fantasy Analyst with the

NFL. Likewise, on May 6, 2015, Purnell signed a contract with the Plaintiff whereby he agreed to

appear and work as a host at the Plaintiffs event as well. Purnell signed the agreement in his


5/21


capacity as a reporter with the NFL.

15. After approving Fabianos involvement, the NFL became increasingly involved in

the NFFC event when Dylan Milner (Milner), Senior Producer for NFL Fantasy Liveon the

NFL Network and NFL Digital media properties, contacted the NFFC and specifically requested

that the NFL participate in the event. Milner indicated that producers and writers would like to

attend the event. Additionally, through Milner, the NFL requested that NFL Fantasy Live

personnel speak on panels at the NFFC. TheNFL Fantasy Liveteam eventually received express

approval from the NFL and agreed to overall participation at the NFFC event.

16.

Meanwhile, excitement continued to build regarding the NFFC. The NFFC went to

great lengths and expense to market the event, including partnering with NFL players to conduct

a multi-faceted social media marketing campaign that touted the event to millions of fantasy

football fans. The NFFC participated in television interviews, appeared on radio programs, and

conducted massive email and social media campaignsall for the purpose of making the July 10

event a success. In total, the NFFC spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote and prepare

for the execution of the event.

17. As the marketing campaign continued, attendees purchased tickets to the event and

booked travel to attend. National companies also showed support for the event by purchasing

sponsorship packages for the NFFC.

D. In a shocking about-face, the NFL used its Gambling Policy as a pretext to begin a

campaign of threats and intimidation.

18. In early June, the NFL had an abrupt change of heart, likely due to the success

experienced by the NFFC, concerns about competition, and other reasons the NFL refuses to

delineate under the auspices of attorney-client privilege. On June 3, 2015, less than five weeks


6/21


before the event was to take place, the NFL began to threaten and harass players who had

committed to appear at the event. Specifically, the NFL contacted players or their agents,

threatening discipline, including player fines and suspensions if the players abided by the terms of

their appearance contracts with the NFFC. By waiting until the last minute to take this position,

the NFL ensured they could inflict the maximum negative impact on the NFFC.

19. On or about Wednesday, June 3, 2015, Brook Gardiner (Gardiner), Senior Labor

Relations Counsel at National Football League, placed a phone call to representatives with the

Dallas Cowboys. Gardiner represented that NFL players would be subject to discipline if they

attended the NFFC event in Las Vegas.

20. The Dallas Cowboys representatives then immediately called Andy Alberth

(Alberth), Executive Director of the NFFC, to inform him about the call from the NFL. Alberth,

believing there must be some sort of mistake or misunderstanding, quickly placed a call to Gardiner

later the same day. Alberth informed Gardiner of the facts regarding the NFFC eventthat the

event was not taking place at a casino, that nogambling would take place at the event, and that

children were allowed and encouraged to attend the event. Alberth ensured it was clear that there

was absolutely no tie to any gaming facilities, and he informed Gardiner that he could provide any

additional information Gardiner needed.

21. However, the NFL had already made up its mind to quash the NFFC. Even after

being assured that the NFFC was not in any way associated with gambling or gambling facilities,

the NFL continued its threats. The NFL even reached out to the National Football League Players

Association (NFLPA)to assist in its plan.

22. That same dayWednesday, June 3, 2015the NFLPA called James Barry

(Barry)of Relativity Sports, indicating that the players represented by Relativity Sports would


7/21


be suspended or fined if they appeared at the NFFC. Barry represented approximately twenty

players who were in the process of signing contracts to appear at the NFFC event. After receiving

the call from the NFLPA, he told the NFFC he absolutely could not send the signed contracts.

23. On Thursday, June 4, 2015, the NFFC received a call from Uche Anyanwu

(Anyanwu), a sports marketing agent at Fritz Martin. Anyanwu had received a call from the

mother of Odell Beckham, Jr., who said the NFL called her and warned her that if her son appeared

at the NFFC he would be suspended or fined. Of the players that were represented by Uche

Anyanwu, several playersincluding Jarvis Landry, Markus Wheaton, Giovani Bernard, Debante

Davis, Richard Sherman, and Bobby Wagnerall had written contracts with the NFFC, and all

subsequentlybacked out of the NFFCs July 2015 event. Others represented by Uche Anyanwu

also backed out of the event, including Odell Beckham, Jr., LaGarette Blount, and Ricardo

Lockette, all of whom had verbally agreed to attend the event, but had not yet executed a written

contract with the NFFC.

24. That same day, the NFLPA also called Bari Wolfman of KCB Sports Marketing

and made the same threats, informing her that her clients would be suspended or fined if they

attended the NFFC.

25. Adie Von Gontard, a sports marketing agent at BYA Sports Group, received a call

from Golden Tate (Tate), who plays for the Detroit Lions. Tate had received a call from his

sports agent, who indicated that Mr. Tate risked suspension from the NFL if he appeared at the

NFFC.

26. Not only did the NFL go after the players, it went after its own dedicated personnel.

On Thursday, June 4, 2015, the NFFC received an emotional call from Fabiano, informing the

NFFC that, despite the prior express approval from the NFL to serve as a host of the event, the


8/21


NFL had reversed positions, forcing him to back out of the event or risk losing his job. Desmond

Purnell was also forced to back out of appearing at the NFFC event. TheNFL Fantasy Live team

also cancelled its appearances at the NFFC event.

E. The NFL continued to misrepresent its gambling policy.

27. After bullying the NFL players into withdrawing from the NFFC event, the NFL

tried to justify its behavior and acted like it had an ace in the hole.In a statement to FOX Sports,

a representative of the NFL stated, "Players and NFL personnel may not participate in promotional

activities or other appearances at or in connection with events that are held at or sponsored by

casinos."

28. The NFL reiterated this position directly to Tony Romos marketing agent. On June

5, 2015, Gardiner (NFL Senior Labor Relations Counsel) represented to Tony Romos marketing

agent, R.J. Gonser of Creative Artists Agency (CAA), that attendance at the NFFC would put a

player in direct violation of the NFL Gambling Policy. Specifically, he said that a player could not

make an appearance at any hotel if the hotel contained a casino.

29.

On June 8, 2015, in an email, Gardiner explained to Joe Nahra, an attorney for CAA

Sports LLC that the Leagues issue with the NFFC is not its association with fantasy football, it

is solely the fact that it is/was scheduled to be held at The Sands Expo.

30. The problem with the NFLs position is that the players participation at the NFFC

would not be a violation of the NFLs Gambling Policy. At best, the policy is ambiguous. In

relevant part, the NFL Gambling Policy states that the league prohibits:

Participating in promotional activities or other appearances at or in connection with events(e.g., golf tournaments, trading card shows) that are held at or sponsored by casinos orother gambling-related establishments.

31. Any ambiguity should be construed against the NFL, in part, because of the prior


9/21


positions the NFL has taken in direct contravention with the position it has taken with the NFFC.

32. Moreover, the convention facility is not a casino. The ballroom where the event

was scheduled to take place does not even have a gaming license, much less the facilities that

would be necessary for gambling activities. The facility is a convention centernothing more.

F. The NFL caused the cancellation of the inaugural NFFC.

33. As of June 1, 2015, the NFFC had signed contracts with approximately sixty (60)

players, two NFL personnel, and had established prospective business relationships with thirty-

five (35) additional NFL players. The NFL was fully aware that the NFFC had both the signed

contracts as well as the prospective business relationships, and that the NFFC was preparing to

execute its inaugural event.

34.

The NFL knew that gambling would not take place at the NFFC and that the event

was not being hosted in a casino. Instead, the NFL sought to cause the NFFC to cancel its event

and lose its revenue, including sponsorships and ticket sales, as well as all expenses invested into

promotion and execution of the event.

35.

By Thursday, June 4, 2015, the NFFC, acting through one of its owners, Tony

Romo, promptly requested that the NFL retract its false and misleading statements because this

would impair the NFFCs event. The NFL refused.

36. In so refusing, the NFL knew that the NFFC could not proceed with the event. The

NFL knew the NFFC would be forced to refund ticket sales and sponsorship sales, but that the

NFFC would still be contractually bound to other contracts associated with the execution of the

event. The NFL also knew that the NFFC had actual and prospective contracts with NFL players

and personnel, and thus knew that its interference would, and in fact did, interfere with contracts

and prospective business relationships.


10/21


37. As a direct and proximate result of the NFLs false statements and refusal to retract

the false statements, players and personnel pulled out of the event. Because the event could not be

executed without the players themselves, and because the NFFC would face extreme liability to

sponsors and attendees for hosing an event without the players, on June 6, 2015, the NFFC was

forced to announce that it would be impossible for the July 10, 2015 NFFC event to proceed.

G. The convention facility is neither a casino nor a gambling-related establishment.

38. The NFL knew that the NFFC would take place at a convention facility that is not

a casino. The convention facility does not have gaming, and it does not have slot machines. In fact,

gambling is expressly prohibited within the ballroom where the event was scheduled to take place.

In fact, it does not even have the licenses that would be necessary for gambling.

39.

Gardiner and the NFL already knew, based on Gardiners June 3, 2015 call with

Alberth, that the NFFC was not taking place at a casino or a gambling-related establishment, that

it was not involving gambling, and that it was not sponsored by a casino. Yet, the NFL continued

to strong-arm the NFL players and NFL personnel into canceling their contracts with the NFFC.

H. Perhaps most appalling, history shows the NFLs hypocrisy and selective enforcement

of its policy against casinos and gambling.

40. The NFLs fabricated pretense for causing the cancellation of the event does not

stop there. Not only does the NFLs behavior lack validity under the terms of the gambling policy,

the NFLs actions are completely inconsistent with its prior course of dealing. In fact, the reality

is that when the NFL gets a piece of the pie, the NFL flagrantly and systematically violates its own

supposed policy against casinos and gambling. Countless examples show the NFLs true attitude

toward betting. The NFL is anti-NFFC, butpro-gambling.

41. In 2014, the New Orleans Saints held their official training camp at The Greenbriar


11/21


Resort. The resort, which has its own on-site 103,000-square-foot casino, is referred to as Monte

Carlo Meets Gone with the Wind.

42. In 2015, fifteen NFL teams signed a deal with FanDuel, a fantasy football gaming

website. During Sunday NFL football, FanDuels most popular game results in a $500,000 prize

to the winner of an NFL fan pool.

43. On May 26, 2015, the Detroit Lions announced an official partnership with the

MGM Grand Detroit. The MGM Grand Detroit is a casino-hotel with slot machines, gaming tables,

and poker rooms. In fact, the MGM plans to build an MGM Grand Detroit Tunnel Club on site

at Ford Field.

44. On October 28, 2014, on their official NFL website, the reigning Super Bowl

Champions, The New England Patriots, proudly posted a video of their free safety, Devin

McCourty, hosting a casino night.

45. From June 6 to June 8, 2014, then-active Dallas Cowboys such as Devonte

Holloman, Dwayne Harris, Terrance Williams, and BW Webb promoted and attended a Fan Zone

event at Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, a Las Vegas resort with a casino on the premises.

46. For over a decade, active NFL players have participated in the Warren Moon Sports

Dream Bowl event, which has occurred at venues such as The Cosmopolitan Hotel & Casino, the

Palazzo, and the Texas Station Gambling Hall & Casino, each of which is a Las Vegas resort with

a casino on its premises.

47. NFL player Rob Gronkowski hosted a party cruise from Miami to the Bahamas on

February 19-22, 2016. The four-day party took place on Norwegian Cruise Line, where

Gronkowskis fans and attendees can take full advantage of Norwegians famed Casinos at Sea.

Photos from the booze-cruise show fans gambling at the on-board casino. The NFL specifically


12/21


knew about the party cruise and its ties to gambling for more than seven months leading up to the

event; yet the NFL took no action to either discipline Rob Gronkowski or prevent the event from

taking place.

48. Further, the NFL has actually approved casino advertising for NFL teams.

Individual clubs may now include casino ads in game programs as well as casino signs at stadiums.

Not only that, but Carnival Cruise Line has been a proud sponsor of the NFL for years. The NFLs

New Orleans Saints have accepted sponsorship dollars from the cruise line, promoted its

sweepstakes, and promoted the cruise line during halftime performanceswhich is clearly a strong

partnership directly with a cruise line that is known specifically for its gambling.

49. The NFL has taken several significant steps to demonstrate its endorsement of

fantasy football. The NFL created the website NFL.com/Fantasy to promote its fantasy leagues.

Twenty-Eight NFL teams have deals with fantasy partners. And shockinglyNFL players are

allowed to play fantasy football.

50. Given the NFLs close ties to gambling, to now argue that the NFFCs July 2015

event was a violation of the gambling policy is utterly disingenuous. Instead, the NFL, recognizing

the commercial opportunities available to the NFFC, likely decided to kill Tony Romos effort so

that it could replace it with one of its own. In doing business with the NFL, the house always

wins.

V. Agency

51. NFL.com, NFL Digital, and NFL Media are all divisions of the NFL, alter-egos of

the NFL, or act as agents for the NFL. Further, NFL.com, NFL Digital, and NFL Media had actual

authority when acting on behalf of the NFL. Alternatively, NFL.com, NFL Digital, and NFL Media

had apparent authority when acting on behalf of the NFL, as Plaintiff had a reasonable belief in


13/21


NFL.com, NFL Digital, and NFL Medias authority caused by the NFLs actions or inactions, and

Plaintiff justifiably relied to its detriment onNFL.com, NFL Digital, and NFL Medias authority.

Alternatively, NFL.com, NFL Digital, and NFL Media s actions were ratified by the NFL.

VI. Causes of Action

A. Tortious Interference with Contract.

52. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in all preceding paragraphs

of this Petition as if fully set forth herein.

53. A claim for tortious interference with an existing contract contains the following

elements: (1) the plaintiff had a valid contract, (2) the defendant willfully and intentionally

interfered with the contract, (3) the interference proximately caused the plaintiffs injury, and (4)

the plaintiff incurred actual damage or loss.

54. The Plaintiff had valid contracts with approximately sixty (60) current NFL players

to make appearances at the inaugural NFFC. The NFL willfully and intentionally interfered with

these contracts by representing to players or their agents that: (a) the event was being held at a

casino or a gambling-related establishment; (b) the event was sponsored by a casino or a gambling-

related establishment; (c) the event violated the NFLs gambling policy; (d) NFL players making

an appearance at the event would be disciplined, including fines or suspensions.

B. Independent torts.

55. The NFLs conduct in interfering with the Plaintiffs contracts and prospective

business relationships was independently tortious. Plaintiff now asserts those claims here as

independent causes of action.

i. Business Disparagement.



14/21



57. To prevail on a business disparagement claim, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the

defendant published false and disparaging information about it, (2) with malice, (3) without

privilege, (4) that resulted in special damages to the plaintiff.

58. The NFL published false and disparaging information about the Plaintiff, namely

that (a) the event was being held at a casino or a gambling-related establishment; (b) the event was

sponsored by a casino or a gambling related establishment; (c) the event violated the NFLs

gambling policy; and (d) NFL players making an appearance at the event would be disciplined.

59.

The NFL published these statements either knowing that its statements were false

or acting with reckless disregard for whether its statements were true. The NFL intended its

statements to interfere with the Plaintiffs economic interest by preventing its players from

appearing at the event. The NFL acted without privilege.

60. The NFLs statements resulted in pecuniary losses to the Plaintiff as the event was

ultimately cancelled.

ii. Fraud.

61. A defendant commits fraud if (1) a material representation was made; (2) the

representation was false; (3) when the representation was made, the speaker knew it was false or

made it recklessly without any knowledge of the truth and as a positive assertion; (4) the speaker

made the representation with the intent that the other party should act upon it; (5) the party acted

in reliance on the representation; and (6) the party thereby suffered injury.

62. The NFL represented that (a) the event was being held at a casino or a gambling-

related establishment; (b) the event was sponsored by a casino or a gambling related establishment;

(c) the event violated the NFLs gambling policy; (d) NFL players making an appearance at the


15/21


event would be disciplined. When the NFL made these representations, it either knew that it was

false or it made these positive assertions recklessly without any knowledge of their truth. The NFL

made the representations with the intent that Plaintiff, the NFL players that had agreed to appear

at the event, and the NFL players who were contemplating appearing at the event act on the

representations. They did act in reliance on these representations which caused Plaintiff damages.

C. Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relationships.



64.

A claim for tortious interference with a prospective business relationship includes

the following elements: (1) a reasonable probability that the parties would have entered into a

business relationship; (2) an intentional, malicious intervention or an independently tortious or

unlawful act performed by the defendant with a conscious desire to prevent the relationship from

occurring or with knowledge that the interference was certain or substantially likely to occur as a

result of its conduct; (3) a lack of privilege or justification for the defendant's actions; and (4)

actual harm or damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's interference, i.e., the

defendant's actions prevented the relationship from occurring.

65. Plaintiff was set to enter into agreements with approximately thirty-five (35) current

NFL players for their participation at the event. The NFL intentionally and maliciously interfered

with these prospective agreements by defaming and disparaging the Plaintiff and by fraudulently

threatening to fine and suspend any player who made an appearance at the event. The NFL lacked

privilege or justification for its actions. The NFL actions prevented the agreements from being

executed, which ultimately resulted in cancellation of the event itself.

D. Breach of Contract.


16/21




67. A claim for breach of contract requires proof of the following elements: (1) there is

a valid contract, (2) the plaintiff is a proper party to sue for breach of the contract, (3) the party

performed or tendered performance, (4) the opposing party breached the contract, and (5) the party

was damaged as a result of the breach.

68. On March 23, 2015, Michael Fabiano, with his representative capacity listed under

his name, signed a contract on behalf of the NFL with the Plaintiff whereby he agreed to appear at

the Plaintiffs event and work as the event host. Likewise, on May 6, 2015, Desmond Purnell, with

his representative capacity listed under his name, signed a contract on behalf of the NFL with the

Plaintiff whereby he agreed to appear and work as a host at the Plaintiffs event as well. The NFL

further contracted with the Plaintiff when it agreed to commit its NFL Fantasy Live team

participation in the event, including having its employee, Heather Pink speak at the event in

exchange for the NFL receiving content to use throughout the upcoming season. On or about June

3, 2015, the NFL breached these agreements by refusing to allow Fabiano and Purnell to appear at

the event in accordance with the contracts, and then by pulling the participation of theNFL Fantasy

Liveteam from the event. As a result of the NFLs breach, Plaintiff was damaged.

E. Promissory Estoppel.



70. Pleading in the alternative to its breach of contract claim, Plaintiff brings this cause

of action for promissory estoppel. The elements of a claim for promissory estoppel are (1) a

promise; (2) foreseeability of reliance thereon by the promisor; and (3) substantial reliance by the


17/21


promisee to his detriment.

71. Here, the NFL agreed to support and participate at the Plaintiffs event by, among

other things, having Michael Fabiano, Desmond Purnell, Heather Pink, and theNFL Fantasy Live

team participate and work at the Plaintiffs event. It was foreseeable by the Defendant that the

Plaintiff would rely on Defendants promises. Plaintiff substantially relied to its detriment on

Defendants promises, thereby causing it significant injury.

F. Equitable Estoppel and Quasi-Estoppel.

72.

Quasi-estoppel precludes a party from asserting, to anothers disadvantage, a right

inconsistent with a position previously taken. The doctrine applies when it would be

unconscionable to allow a person to maintain a position inconsistent with one to which he

acquiesced, or from which he accepted a benefit.

73. The elements of equitable estoppel are (1) a false representation or concealment of

material facts made with the intent that another party act on the false representation or silence, (2)

the false representation or concealment of material facts was made by a party with knowledge of

the facts, (3) the party to whom the representation was made or from whom facts were concealed

was without knowledge or the means of knowledge of the real facts, and (4) detrimental reliance.

74. Plaintiff asserts the doctrines of quasi-estoppel and equitable estoppel as counter-

defenses to Defendants affirmative defenses, including its defense of justification. Defendant

knew for months that the event was being held in Las Vegas, specifically in the ballrooms located

within the Venetian Resort or its adjoining convention center. Nevertheless, Defendant approved

of the contracts that its employees, Fabiano and Purnell, signed obligating them to attend and

participate at the event. After approving Fabianos involvement, the Defendant became


18/21


increasingly involved in the NFFC event when Milner, Senior Producer for NFL Fantasy Liveon

the NFL Network and NFL Digital media properties, contacted the NFFC and specifically

requested that the NFL participate in the event. Milner indicated that producers and writers would

like to attend the event. Additionally, through Milner, the Defendant requested that NFL Fantasy

Live personnel speak on panels at the NFFC. NFL Fantasy Live sought and obtained express

approval from the NFL to attend the event.

75. The Defendant had knowledge of the events venue when it approved the contracts

and when its approved its employees participation at the event. Indeed, its employees were booked

to stay at The Venetian Hotel during the event. The Defendant then sat on its hands while the event

was further planned by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff relied on Defendants approval of Fabianos and

Purnells contracts as well as theNFL Fantasy Livesteams participation to its detriment. It would

be unconscionable to allow the Defendant to suddenly switch its position and contend that the

event was noncompliant with its Gambling Policy at a time that guaranteed its cancellation, which

in turn has caused the Plaintiff significant injury.

VII. Actual Damages

76. The NFLs interference proximately caused Plaintiffs damages, including lost

ticket sales, sponsorship sales, lost profits, and harm to its goodwill and its business reputation.

VIII. Exemplary Damages

77. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary damages because the NFL acted with

either malice or gross negligence when it caused the Plaintiffs damages.

IX. Attorneys Fees

78. Plaintiff has retained representation to prosecute and defend this action and has

agreed to pay its attorneys reasonable fees for necessary services. An award of attorneys fees to


19/21


the Plaintiff would be equitable and just and authorized by Ch. 38 of the Texas Civil Practice &

Remedies Code.

X. Conditions Precedent

79. All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs suit have occurred or have been performed.

XI. Jury Demand

80. Plaintiff respectfully asserts the right to a trial by jury under Texas Constitution

article 1, 15, and makes this demand for a jury trial at least thirty (30) days before the date this

case is set for trial, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 216.

XII. Prayer

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully prays that:

a.

Defendant be cited to appear and answer;

b. That the Court empanel a jury to determine any issue of fact, and that upon final

hearing of this cause, Plaintiff have judgment against Defendant for:

i. Actual and consequential damages to be determined by a jury;

ii.

Judgment against Defendant for exemplary damages as determined at trial

on the merits;

iii. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest rates provided for

by agreement of the parties or allowed by law;

iv. Attorneys fees;

v. Court costs; and

vi. Such other and further relief, at law or in equity or by statute, to which

Plaintiff may be justly entitled.


20/21


Respectfully Submitted,

THE PETTIT LAW FIRM

By: /s/Julie Pettit_______________Julie PettitState Bar No. 24065971David B. UrteagoState Bar No. [email protected]@pettitfirm.com

3710 Rawlins, Suite 1050Dallas, Texas 75219Telephone: (214) 329-0151Facsimile: (214) 320-4076

LYNN PINKER COX HURST

Michael K. HurstState Bar No. [email protected] Franklin GuildState Bar No. [email protected] T.E. Kalis

State Bar No. [email protected]

2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700Dallas, Texas 75201Telephone: (214) 981-3800Facsimile: (214) 981-3839

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF


21/21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing documentwas served upon the following via Emailon February 22, 2016:

R. Thaddeus [email protected] M. Jones [email protected] [email protected] AND BOONE,LLP2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700Dallas, Texas 75219Telephone: (214) 651-5000Facsimile: (214) 651-5940

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

/s/Julie PettitCounsel for Plaintiff

Documents

Romo's Fantasy Event v NFL