Oliver v. NCAA - 2009-Ohio-6587, 155 Ohio Misc. 2d 17, 920 N.E.2d 203 (Ct. Com. Pl.)

Rule:

To prevail on a claim for injunction, the right of the plaintiff to relief must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is that measure of degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established. It is intermediate, being more than a mere preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. It does not mean clear and unequivocal.

Facts:

A former attorney attended a meeting between the player, his father, and a professional baseball team. The player rejected an offer to play for that team and decided to attend college in Oklahoma on a full scholarship instead. After the defendant, National Collegiate Athletic Association, was told of the meeting, the player was suspended. The player was informed that he had violated NCAA Bylaw 12.3.1 by (1) allowing his previous attorneys to contact a professional baseball team by telephone and (2) by allowing the attorney to be present in his home when a representative from the professional baseball team tendered an offer to him. Plaintiff filed an action against the association, seeking a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction in a dispute concerning the association's bylaws.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, should the plaintiff’s motion for permanent injunction and declaratory relief be granted? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The requests for a permanent injunction and declaratory relief were granted. In granting the requested relief, the common pleas court noted that there was no choice of law issue presented because there was no Oklahoma law, rule, or statute set forth that was in contradiction to Ohio law. Even though there was no contract between the parties, an action for breach of contract could have been brought by the player because he was an intended third-party beneficiary. The court further held that because a bylaw was arbitrary, it was a violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing that was implicit in the contract. An interference with a contract claim relating to the contract between the player and his new attorney failed. However, there was tortious interference relating to the contract between the player and the college. The common pleas court determined that the player would have suffered irreparable injury, loss or damage if injunctive relief was not granted.