Law of Cards: Upper Deck Distribution Lawsuit Escalates with Amended Complaint

Law of Cards: Upper Deck Distribution Lawsuit Escalates with Amended Complaint


Deprecated: Non-static method gdsrBlgDB::add_new_view() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/cardboar/public_html/wp-content/plugins/gd-star-rating/code/class.php on line 1909

Warning: Illegal string offset 'before_widget' in /home/cardboar/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mycustomwidget/my_custom_widget_functions.php on line 769

Warning: Illegal string offset 'after_widget' in /home/cardboar/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mycustomwidget/my_custom_widget_functions.php on line 771

Warning: Illegal string offset 'before_title' in /home/cardboar/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mycustomwidget/my_custom_widget_functions.php on line 773

Warning: Illegal string offset 'after_title' in /home/cardboar/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mycustomwidget/my_custom_widget_functions.php on line 775

Deprecated: Function eregi_replace() is deprecated in /home/cardboar/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mycustomwidget/my_custom_widget_functions.php on line 1325

Warning: Illegal string offset 'before_widget' in /home/cardboar/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mycustomwidget/my_custom_widget_functions.php on line 769

Warning: Illegal string offset 'after_widget' in /home/cardboar/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mycustomwidget/my_custom_widget_functions.php on line 771

Warning: Illegal string offset 'before_title' in /home/cardboar/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mycustomwidget/my_custom_widget_functions.php on line 773

Warning: Illegal string offset 'after_title' in /home/cardboar/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mycustomwidget/my_custom_widget_functions.php on line 775

Deprecated: Function eregi_replace() is deprecated in /home/cardboar/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mycustomwidget/my_custom_widget_functions.php on line 1325

Warning: Illegal string offset 'before_widget' in /home/cardboar/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mycustomwidget/my_custom_widget_functions.php on line 769

Warning: Illegal string offset 'after_widget' in /home/cardboar/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mycustomwidget/my_custom_widget_functions.php on line 771

Warning: Illegal string offset 'before_title' in /home/cardboar/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mycustomwidget/my_custom_widget_functions.php on line 773

Warning: Illegal string offset 'after_title' in /home/cardboar/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mycustomwidget/my_custom_widget_functions.php on line 775

Deprecated: Function eregi_replace() is deprecated in /home/cardboar/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mycustomwidget/my_custom_widget_functions.php on line 1325

When we last checked in on the J&T Hobby v. Upper Deck lawsuit (over a distribution agreement allegedly gone wrong), UD scored a significant victory by getting J&T's complaint tossed out. Hope was not completely lost for J&T, because the court did give it a second chance—it could continue if it could specifically spell out the who, what, where, when and how of its fraud claim.

Legal translation: J&T needs to identify specific people by name, places, specific dates and the mechanism of the alleged fraud.

To try and meet the court's requirement, on January 4, J&T filed its amended complaint in which it goes into excruciating detail about the alleged fraud, including a narrative involving a "who's who" of the trading card world.

Blowout In Post Ad

The story within the amended complaint basically is that a distributor called Edgeman and a retailer called Vintage were given preferential treatment in violation of UD's distribution contract with J&T. UD also allegedly gave Edgeman and Vintage "preferential treatment," such as letting them sell product at lower prices or a discount, or giving them more limited, in-demand and desirable products than what was given to J&T. Again, J&T alleges this was all in violation of its deal with UD.

J&T also alleges that through this relationship, UD "undercut" J&T's prices, usurped its profits, unloaded undesirable product on J&T at uncompetitive prices, defeated the benefits of the contract , and otherwise tried to put J&T out of business.

J&T also alleges that Edgeman and Vintage were at least partially owned by UD and/or Richard McWilliam as well. J&T claims that every time they tried to get to the bottom of whether any of the above was true or not, everyone it talked to from UD denied it.

So, basically, J&T’s new complaint can be summed up as "We had a contract, they violated it, they repeatedly lied to us about it, and they improperly benefited from it all."

Is J&T's amended complaint sufficient? The complaint does a much better job of explaining the alleged fraud, but pleading fraud has such a high bar there are never any guarantees. I think J&T gets it right here. They definitely get the "who, what, where and when." It's the "how" part that is more subjective. So if the judge does dismiss the complaint (or somehow limits the action to only certain causes), it would not shock me either.

We'll soon find out if J&T got it right, because I guarantee UD will file a very similar motion to what it won on last time.

Legal translation: The motion will say, "Hey judge, yet again, they didn't fully identify 'the who, what, where, when and how' of the alleged fraud. Can you kill this case now for good?"

For those of you interested in the gory details, and seeing a "who's who" of the trading card industry, you'll definitely want to check out paragraphs 14-22 and 28 of the complaint. J&T also attaches a copy of one of the distribution agreements it had with UD.

The information provided in Paul Lesko's "Law of Cards" column is not intended to be legal advice, but merely conveys general information related to legal issues commonly encountered in the sports industry. This information is not intended to create any legal relationship between Paul Lesko, the Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC or any attorney and the user. Neither the transmission nor receipt of these website materials will create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the readers.

The views expressed in the "Law of Cards" column are solely those of the author and are not affiliated with the Simmons Law Firm. You should not act or rely on any information in the "Law of Cards" column without seeking the advice of an attorney. The determination of whether you need legal services and your choice of a lawyer are very important matters that should not be based on websites or advertisements.

Top eBay Listings

2012-13 UPPER DECK THE CUP ROOKIE AUTO PATCH #93 TOREY KRUG RC 073 249
$30.23

Michael Jordan 2012 13 Upper Deck Master Collection Painting Autograph 13 30
$549.99

2012-13 Upper Deck Artifacts "Autofacts" A-VF Valtteri Filppula AUTO
$8.99

MAXIME SAUVE 2012-13 ROOKIE UPPER DECK SP AUTO AUTOGRAPH
$17.99

2012-13 Upper Deck Artifacts #IX Filip Forsberg 99 Nashville Predators Auto 0c3
$99.99

2012-13 ,UPPER DECK , SP GAME USED, CODY GOLOUBEF , CARD #115 , GOLD , AUTO
$20.00

2012-13 Upper Deck Ultimate Collection Signature Masterpieces Jordan Eberle Auto
$5.70

12 13 Upper Deck Ultimate Signatures Auto Team Canada Jaden Schwartz #US-SJ Mint
$10.00

Ryan Getzlaf 2012-13 Upper Deck The Cup Limited Logos 5-color Patch Auto 6 50
$99.95

12-13 Universal GTS Promo Upper Deck Carter Ashton RC YEAR AUTO P29 MAPLE LEAFS
$7.00

12-13 Upper Deck SIGNATURE SENSATIONS Benn Ferriero AUTO BV 20.00
$7.00

2012-13 Upper Deck UD EXQUISITE ENDORESEMENTS Auto Signature EE-JH Jeff Hornacek
$14.99
« Previous12345


 |  E-Mail | URL
Paul Lesko has litigated intellectual property for over 15 years. Don’t hold the fact that Paul is a lawyer against him, he’s also a rabid baseball and college basketball fan, and an avid baseball card collector. Paul can be found on Twitter @Paul_Lesko and Google+.

Leave a Comment:

MENU