Lee v. Raymond Brother

2021 WL 4652336 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P Lee is an agent certified by the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA), the players' union. The NBPA regulates and certifies player agents who represent NBA players and requires - through its certification agreement - that all agents agree to the NBPA's regulations, which govern the relationship between players and their agents. The certification agreement incorporates by reference the union's regulations. P agreed to represent Mitchell Robinson. The Contract entitled P to a commission based on a percentage of whatever compensation Robinson received from his NBA team if drafted. The agreement permitted either party to terminate the Contract on fifteen days' written notice. On March 28, 2018, Robinson sent P a letter purporting to terminate P's services. D is a certified player agent with the NBPA and the president and CEO of co-defendants IAM Sports and IAM. D offered Robinson a brand-new pickup truck to induce him to terminate the Contract with P and to use D's agency services. On March 30, 2018, D ordered (and then fully paid for) a 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 pickup truck from Best Chevrolet in Kenner, Louisiana. D paid for the pickup truck using their own funds at a cost of $34,464.50. The NBA draft was held on June 21, 2018. The New York Knicks drafted Robinson as their second-round pick. On July 8, 2018, Robinson signed a four-year contract with the Knicks. His yearly base salary was well over one million dollars. Since 2018, Robinson has played center for the Knicks. P alleges that the purchase or loan of the pickup truck violated the NBPA regulation expressly prohibiting an agent from 'providing or offering a monetary inducement . . . to any [p]layer (including a rookie) or college athlete to induce or encourage that person to utilize his services.' P sued D claiming D breached D's certification agreement with the NBPA when D offered Robinson the equivalent of a mandatory inducement (the paid-for pickup truck) to induce Robinson to sign with D, in violation of the NEPA regulations, giving rise to damages to Lee as a third-party beneficiary of D's certification agreement. Before the Court is Ds' motion to dismiss P's amended complaint in its entirety.