James E. Peterson v. Harold Kennedy, Richard A. Berthelsen, and National Football League Players Association

Appellant James Peterson brought suit against the National Football League Players Association (“NFLPA” or “union”) and two of its attorneys, claiming that the union, through the named attorneys, had furnished him with inaccurate advice upon which he detrimentally relied in pursuing a grievance against his ex-ballelub, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Peterson appeals from the district court’s decisions to grant summary judgment in favor of one of the individually named union attorneys, to issue a directed verdict in favor of the other union attorney, and to grant the NFLPA’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict after the jury had ruled in his favor. We affirm each of the trial court’s decisions.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Events Giving Rise to Peterson’s Grievance

James Peterson played college football at San Diego State University. After graduating with a physical education degree in 1973, Peterson was drafted by the Los Angeles Rams of the National Football League (NFL). He played for the Rams until 1976, at which time he was traded to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

In the summer of 1976, Peterson signed three separate one-year contracts with Tampa Bay for the 1976, 1977, and 1978…

concurring:

I concur in Parts II and III A of the court’s opinion, and in the affirmance of the district court’s judgment. I do not agree with the vast extention of immunity from suit under section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act which the majority undertakes, gratuitously, in Part III B of its opinion.

The case before us involves the actions of an attorney who, as a full time employee of a union, undertook the representation of a union member with respect to a grievance with the employer. We need only decide whether the rule of Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U.S. 238 , 82 S.Ct. 1318 , 8 L.Ed.2d 462 (1962), insulates the union’s in-house counsel from a claim for damages by a union member who alleged that the attorney was guilty of ordinary negligence. There is no occasion for us to reach the more difficult question of whether outside counsel should be afforded the same protections.

Nevertheless, in what can only be characterized as a learned discussion of a hypothetical question, the majority undertakes to apply the rule of Atkinson to outside counsel. The majority’s discussion is unnecessary to its opinion; more unfortunately it is also wrong. Only because…

771 F.2d 1244 120 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2520 , 54 USLW 2181 , 103 Lab.Cas. P 11,677 James E. PETERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold KENNEDY, Richard A. Berthelsen, and National Football League Players Association, Defendants-Appellees. No. 84-5788. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 6, 1985. Decided Sept. 16, 1985. Joseph A. Yablonski, Yablonski, Both & Edelman, Washington, D.C., Robert Simpson, Rose, Klein & Marias, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees. Edgar Paul Boyko, Robert K. Schraner, Miller, Boyko & Bell, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Before GOODWIN, REINHARDT, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellant James Peterson brought suit against the National Football League Players Association ("NFLPA" or "union") and two of its attorneys, claiming that the union, through the named attorneys, had furnished him with inaccurate advice upon which he detrimentally relied in pursuing a grievance against his ex-ballclub, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Peterson appeals from the district court's decisions to grant summary…