Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Smith v. NCAA

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

February 12, 1998, Argued ; March 16, 1998, Filed

Nos. 97-3346 and 97-3347



GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.


Renee M. Smith, a pro se litigant, appeals from the district court's order of May 21, 1997, dismissing her complaint for failure to state a claim, and from the district court's order of June 5, 1997, denying her motion for leave to amend her complaint. Smith's complaint alleges violations of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, as well as a state law breach [**3]  of contract claim against the National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA"). Smith's allegations arise from the NCAA's promulgation and enforcement of a bylaw prohibiting a student-athlete from participating in intercollegiate athletics while enrolled in a graduate program at an institution other than the student-athlete's undergraduate institution.

The district court had jurisdiction over the federal claims in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 and 15  [*183]  U.S.C. § 15, and over the state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This court has jurisdiction to review the final orders of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1

 [**4]  ] We exercise plenary review over the district court's dismissal of Smith's complaint for failure to state a claim. See Lake v. Arnold, 112 F.3d 682, 684 (3d Cir. 1997). We accept all of her allegations as true, view them in the light most favorable to her, and will affirm the dismissal only if she can prove no set of facts entitling her to relief. See Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996); ALA, Inc. v. CCAir, Inc., 29 F.3d 855, 859 (3d Cir. 1994). ] We review the district court's denial of her motion for leave to amend her complaint for abuse of discretion. See In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997).


Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

139 F.3d 180 *; 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 4694 **; 1998-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P72,084; 40 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 489


Subsequent History:  [**1]  Counsel Corrected March 25, 1998.

Certiorari Granted September 29, 1998, Reported at: 1998 U.S. LEXIS 4651.

Prior History: On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. (D.C. Civ. No. 96-01604).

Disposition: Affirmed the district court's dismissal of appellant's Sherman Act claim, vacated its dismissal of the Title IX claim, and reversed the district court's denial of her motion for leave to amend her complaint with respect to her Title IX claim. Remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and direct the district court to reinstate her state law contract claim, over which the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).


district court, federal funds, athletics, Sherman Act, recipient, intercollegiate, amend, bylaw, institutions, Postbaccalaureate, eligibility requirements, student-athlete, receives, federal financial assistance, eligibility rules, anti trust law, procompetitive, allegations, proposed amended complaint, failure to state a claim, education program, promulgation, television, futile, sports, motion for leave, leave to amend, anticompetitive, undergraduate, eligibility

Civil Procedure, Justiciability, Mootness, General Overview, Education Law, Gender & Sex Discrimination, Title IX, Remedies, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Dismissal, Involuntary Dismissals, Failure to State Claims, Judgments, Pretrial Judgments, Judgment on Pleadings, Abuse of Discretion, Pleadings, Amendment of Pleadings, Leave of Court, Antitrust & Trade Law, Regulated Industries, Higher Education & Professional Associations, Colleges & Universities, Monopolies & Monopolization, Conspiracy to Monopolize, Sherman Act, Sherman Act, Athletics, Scope of Title IX, Protected Individuals, Parties, Pro Se Litigants, Pleading Standards, Responses, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim