Scribd
Upload
58 views2 pages

Bias V Advantage International, Inc.

The Plaintiff sued the Defendant sports agency for harms resulting from its representation of basketball player Len Bias, who died of a drug overdose. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Defendant. The Plaintiff appealed, arguing issues of material fact existed. The appellate court upheld summary judgment, finding the Plaintiff failed to provide evidence contradicting the Defendant's proof that Bias used cocaine, an important fact for the claims. The court concluded no reasonable jury could find for the Plaintiff based on the evidence provided.

Uploaded by

Mỹ Anh Trần
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
58 views2 pages

Bias V Advantage International, Inc.

The Plaintiff sued the Defendant sports agency for harms resulting from its representation of basketball player Len Bias, who died of a drug overdose. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Defendant. The Plaintiff appealed, arguing issues of material fact existed. The appellate court upheld summary judgment, finding the Plaintiff failed to provide evidence contradicting the Defendant's proof that Bias used cocaine, an important fact for the claims. The court concluded no reasonable jury could find for the Plaintiff based on the evidence provided.

Uploaded by

Mỹ Anh Trần
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Bias v. Advantage International, Inc.

Facts: Bias, a basketball player at the University of Maryland, entered into a


representation agreement with the Defendant, wherein the Defendant pledged to
counsel and represent Bias in his matters. Bias died shortly later from a drug
overdose. As the personal agent of Bias's estate, Plaintiff sued Defendant for two
different harms purportedly resulting from Bias's representation. Plaintiff
challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant on both
claims.

Issue: Was the trial court’s decision proper?

Rule: The moving party in a move for summary judgment is always responsible
for notifying the district court of the grounds for its motion and specifying the
elements of the record that, in its view, establish the lack of a genuine question of
material fact. Summary judgment is appropriate, regardless of which party moves
for it, where a party fails to provide an adequate showing of the presence of an
element fundamental to that party's case and on which that party will carry the
burden of evidence at trial. Therefore, the moving party must explain its reasoning
for determining that there are no real questions of material fact raised by the record
and must provide evidence in support of its claims insofar as those claims concern
matters on which it will carry the burden at trial.

Application: The answer to the question of this case is yes.


The decision of the district court to issue summary judgment was upheld by the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Rule 56(c) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure permits summary judgment when the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, as well as any
affidavits, establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The moving party is
always responsible for telling the district court of the grounds for its motion and
identifying the elements of the record that, in its view, establish the lack of a
genuine question of material fact. Summary judgment is appropriate, regardless of
which party moves for it, where a party fails to provide an adequate showing of the
presence of an element fundamental to that party's argument and for which that
party will carry the burden of evidence at trial. Therefore, the moving party must
justify its conclusion that there are no real questions of material fact revealed by
the evidence. Once the moving party has met its duty, the burden transfers on the
nonmoving party to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists. The
nonmoving party must provide "particular facts" demonstrating the existence of a
real trial issue. In considering the nonmovant's offer, the court must naturally draw
all plausible conclusions in favor of the nonmovant from the facts.

Conclusion: The court ruled that the estate did not have the right to present its case
to the jury on the basis that the jury may not trust the defendants' witnesses. The
district court correctly decided that there was no real dispute of material fact about
the insurability of the player, a drug user, since the estate failed to demonstrate
more than a mere philosophical uncertainty regarding the material facts. The court
determined that neither the text of the representation agreement between the player
and defendants nor any other evidence could support a judgment that defendants
violated any duty owed to the player by failing to insist on obtaining a signed
contract on the day of discussions before the player's death.

Sythensis: In deciding that summary judgment was appropriate, the court pointed
out that Plaintiff did not show any evidence to contradict Defendant's proof that
Bias was a cocaine user. The court said that Bias' parents and coach's testimony
that he did not use cocaine was not enough to disprove Defendant's evidence
because Bias' parents and coach did not go to the parties where it was said he used
cocaine. So, the Circuit Court agreed with the District Court that there wasn't a real
question of fact about whether or not Bias used cocaine.

You might also like