Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 275 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2001)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2001-12-28
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including . . . details contrary to his claims.”
- holding the 4 court need not “accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice 5 or by exhibit.”
- noting that a court need not take “unwarranted deductions of fact” as true on a 6 motion to dismiss
- “Nor is the 2 court required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory. . . .”
- “Nor is the court required to accept as true allegations that 7 are merely conclusory. . . .”
- “Nor is the court required to accept as true allegations that are merely conelu-sory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”
- “The court need not, however, accept as 13 true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit.”
- “[A] 17 plaintiff can . . . plead himself out of a claim by including unnecessary details contrary to 18 his claims.”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 409 opinions
SPREWELL v. GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS,275 F.3d 1187(9th Cir. 2001)
Latrell F. SPREWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS;
National Basketball Association, Defendants-Appellees.
Page 1188
Latrell F. Sprewell, Plaintiff, and Robert Thompson, Jr.; Gordon J.
Rose; Stephen G. Weizenecker; Thompson Associates; Robert
A. Gist; Paul F. Utrecht; Gist, Kennedy Associates,
Appellants, v. Golden State Warriors; National Basketball
Association, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 99-15602, 99-17186.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted October 4, 2000.
Filed September 14, 2001.
Amended December 28, 2001.
Richard R. Dale, Law Offices of Richard R. Dale, Mill Valley, California for plaintiffs-appellants Thompson, et al.
Jeffrey A. Mishkin (Argued), Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom LLP, New York, New York, for the defendant-appellees.
Frank Rothman (On the Briefs) and Marie L. Hurabiell (On the Briefs), Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom LLP, Los Angeles, California, for defendant National Basketball Association.
Martin P. Moroski (On the Briefs), Sinsheimer, Schiebelhut Baggett, San Luis Obispo, California, for the defendants-appellees.
Before: D.W. NELSON, THOMPSON, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The Opinion filed September 14, 2001, is amended as follows:
At Slip Op. 13304-13305 [266 F.3d 979, 989], in the sentence which begins "The arbitration award effectively and persuasively fleshes out the fact . . .", delete the portion of the sentence that reads, "Thearbitration award effectively and persuasively fleshes out the fact thatthe actions taken by the NBA and the Warriors were motivated solely bySprewell's misconduct and were not, as Sprewell states," and substitute "The uncontested facts set forth in the arbitration award effectively andpersuasively rebut the conclusory allegations made by Sprewell, that theactions taken by the NBA and the Warriors were" The sentence would then read:
The uncontested facts set forth in the arbitration award effectively and persuasively rebut the conclusory allegations made by Sprewell, that the actions taken by the NBA and the Warriors were the product of America's "fear of the black man's physicality and rage, and the fear and resentment of the black man's success, along with the corresponding anger that the black man is not grateful for what he has been `given.'"
With these amendments, the panel as constituted above has voted to deny appellees, National Basketball Association's, and appellant, Latrell Sprewell's, petitions for rehearing. Judge Trott has voted to deny the petitions for rehearing en banc, and Judges D.W. Nelson and Thompson so recommend. The full court has been advised of the suggestions for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it. Fed.R.App.P.35(b).Page 1189
The petitions for rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED.