House v. NCAA: Judge Denies Houston Christian University’s Request to Intervene
On June 20, 2024, Houston Christian University, formerly known as Houston Baptist University, (“HCU”) filed a motion for mandatory or permissive intervention. HCU sought a declaratory judgment that the proposed settlement between the parties shall be declared ““void, is of no effect, is not approved, and cannot be executed by Defendants.” HCU advanced arguments that the settlement agreement “is being or has been approved by the NCAA in violation of the NCAA’s constitution, bylaws, and rules.” Ultimately, the Court denied HCU’s request to intervene.
The elements for mandatory intervention are: (1) the motion to intervene must be timely; (2) the proposed intervenor must assert an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the proposed intervenor “must be so situated that without intervention the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect that interest”; and (4) the proposed intervenor’s interest must be inadequately represented by the other parties. The Court found that HCU failed to meet its burden for the following reasons:
HCU did not meet its burden to establish the third requirement for mandatory intervention, because it has not shown that it is so situated that, without intervention, the disposition of this action will impair its ability to protect its claimed interest in making its own fund-allocation decisions; and
HCU did not meet its burden to establish timeliness because HCU waited more than four (4) years after the initial complaint was filed.
The elements for permissive intervention are: (1) independent grounds for jurisdiction; (2) the motion is timely; and (3) the applicant’s claim or defense, and the main action, have a question of law or a question of fact in common. Similarly, the Court denied HCU’s request to permissively intervene and cited the following reasons:
HCU did not show there are “independent grounds for jurisdiction” over its proposed complaint in intervention, which seeks a declaratory judgment that the settlement agreement is void because it violates “the NCAA’s constitution, bylaws, and rules.”
HCU did not show that the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes about whether the NCAA’s actions violate its own constitution, bylaws, and rules.
HCU did not show its proposed claim for a declaratory judgment, which is based on alleged violations of the NCAA’s constitution, bylaws, and rules, has a question of law or a question of fact in common with this action, which is based on alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
HCU did now show that its intervention, if permitted, would not unduly delay this action or prejudice the adjudication of the parties’ rights.
The Court was also persuaded by the parties’ arguments that HCU's intervention would “unduly prejudice them by derailing their settlement discussions.”
Finally, the Court concluded that HCU is not permitted to “re-package” arguments for intervention as an objection to the yet to be filed settlement agreement. As non-class members, HCU lacks standing to object to the settlement agreement.
For any questions, contact Christian Dennie at cdennie@denniefirm.com.
