NEW YORK (Legal Newsline) – Tossing in a brand-new pickup truck to poach an NBA prospect from another agent does not give the spurned agent a reason to sue.
New York federal judge Jed Rakoff made that determination Oct. 6 in the tale of the recruitment of current New York Knicks center Mitchell Robinson, who was the object of affection for competing agencies before the 2018 NBA draft.
He had signed an agreement with agent David Lee in 2017 but in March 2018, Lee received a letter of termination which stated “effective immediately” despite their contract calling for a minimum of 15 days’ notice, Lee said in his lawsuit.
Lee claims Raymond Brothers and his IAM Sports & Entertainment approached Robinson three months before the New York Knicks drafted him in the second round of the 2018 NBA draft, alleging they "lured" him with a new 2017 Chevy Silverado 1500 pick-up to switch agents.
He claims the defendants interfered with his agent agreement through bribery and in direct violation of NBPA rules and that he suffered the loss of compensation for Robinson's success.
Rakoff said such a “foul” does not give rise to a legal claim. He said Lee couldn’t prove he is an intended beneficiary of NBA Players Association regulations.
“(T)he regulations… while explicitly stating an intention to protect players, contain no equivalent statement of intent to benefit player agents,” Rakoff wrote. “Further, the language of (Section 3.B.2) specifically states that the prohibited conduct is ‘subject to discipline,’ with a disciplinary procedure set out in detail within the regulations that is run the by the NBPA Executive Committee.
“Thus, on its face, the regulations evince an intent for violations to be enforced through an internal disciplinary procedure, precluding a finding of an intention to allow third-party enforcement through private action.”
As for Lee’s tortious interference claims, Rakoff wrote Lee couldn’t prove there was some degree of economic pressure to sign Robinson away from him.