MAYER v. BELICHICK 605 F.3d 223 (3rd Cir.) Season ticket-holder brought action against the New England Patriots and league, alleging various causes of action, including tortuous interference with contract as well as causes of action under consumer fraud and deceptive practice statutes, arising out of the team's alleged practice of surreptitiously videotaping the sig- nals of opposing teams. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted defendant's motions to dismiss, and the ticketholder appeale COWEN, Circuit Judge Plaintiff Carl J. Mayer appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granting the respective motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots ("Patriots") as well as by Defendant National Football League ("NFL"). We will affirm. 1. This highly unusual case was filed by a disap- pointed football fan and season ticket-holder in response to the so-called "Spygate" scandal. This scandal arose when it was discovered that the Patri- ots were surreptitiously videotaping the signals of their opponents. Mayer, a New Jersey resident and New York Jets season ticket-holder, initially filed his complaint on September 7, 2007. He named as Defendants the Patriots, headquartered in Massachusetts, as well as the team's head coach, Belichick, a Massachusetts resident. Mayer even- Massachusetts, as well as the team's head coach, Belichick, a Massachusetts resident. Mayer even- tually filed an amended complaint on August 19, 2008, which added the NFL, with its headquarters in New York, as a Defendant. We, like the Dis- trict Court before us, must look to the amended complaint, accepting its well pleaded factual alle- gations as true for purposes of this appeal. The Preliminary Statement of the Case section of this extensive pleading provided a fair description of the gist of Mayer's case, at least against the Patri- ots and Belichick: 2. This case is brought by a New York Jets season ticket-holder on behalf of all similarly situated New York Jets season ticket-holders and other New York Jets ticket-holders against the Defen- dant New England Patriots and their coach, Defendant Bill Belichick. The core of this action is that the Defendants, during a game with the New York Jets on September 9, 2007, instructed 96 t r O V ti pla Ru par on an agent of the Defendants to surreptitiously vid- eotape the New York Jets coaches and players c the field with the purpose of illegally recording, capturing and stealing the New York Jets signals and visual coaching instructions. The Defendants were in fact subsequently found by the National Football League ("NFL") to have improperly engaged in such conduct. This violated the con- tractual expectations and rights of New York Jets ticket-holders who fully anticipated and con- tracted for a ticket to observe an honest match played in compliance with all laws, regulations and NFL rules. anisla, priboste daildst.ol At their most fundamental level, the various claims alleged here arose out of the repeated and surreptitious violations of a specific NFL rule. This rule provides that "no video recording devices of any kind are per- mitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game"" and that "all video for coaching purposes must be shot from loca- tions 'enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."" On September 9, 2007, the Jets and the Patriots played the season opener in Giants Stadium, East Rutherford, New Jersey. Mayer possessed tickets and parking passes to this game, and the Patriots ultimately >> CASE QUESTIONS 1. What was the legal basis for Mayer's claims? 2. What does it mean when the court holds that "Mayer failed to set forth a legally cognizable right, interest, or injury"? 3. Why did the District Court and the Third Circuit dismiss Mayer's claims?