- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,123
- 94,970
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Judge dismisses Vilma’s defamation lawsuit against Goodell
The bounty case is now over. Mostly.
Judge Helen G. Berrigan dismissed linebacker Jonathan Vilma’s defamation lawsuit against Commissioner Roger Goodell on Thursday. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello announced the development on Twitter.
Goodell and the NFL had filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the Collective Bargaining Agreement prevents players from suing Goodell personally for claims of this nature. Judge Berrigan agreed with the league that, under federal law, Vilma could not sue Goodell directly, but that any remedies must be pursued under the CBA.
Vilma claimed that Goodell told lies about the player’s involvement in the bounty case. Even if the case had been permitted to proceed, Vilma would have been required to prove that Goodell knew that the information was false or that he acted with reckless disregard to whether the information was true of false, since Vilma is a public figure.
Vilma will have 30 days to file a notice of appeal.
Even if Vilma chooses not to continue the lawsuit, there are still a pair of loose ends in the bounty case. Saints coach Sean Payton and former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams will at some point apply for reinstatement. There’s no guarantee their requests will be granted.
Last month, all player suspensions were overturned by former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue.
UPDATE 7:20 p.m. ET: Vilma’s lawyer, Peter Ginsberg, tells PFT that Vilma is considering his options.
-----------
After dismissal of lawsuit, Vilma is considering his options
Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma has not reacted via Twitter to today’s dismissal of his defamation lawsuit against Commissioner Roger Goodell.
Vilma’s lawyer has provided a comment through more traditional means.
“We are obviously disappointed, strongly believe that the CBA does not give anyone — including a Commissioner — a license to misrepresent and to manufacture facts, especially at the expense of another person’s reputation,” lawyer Peter Ginsberg told PFT via email.
Ginsberg added that he and Vilma are “considering our options.”
The primary option at this point is to appeal the ruling to a higher federal court. Alternatively, Vilma could file a grievance under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The remedies most likely would be very limited.
The bounty case is now over. Mostly.
Judge Helen G. Berrigan dismissed linebacker Jonathan Vilma’s defamation lawsuit against Commissioner Roger Goodell on Thursday. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello announced the development on Twitter.
Goodell and the NFL had filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the Collective Bargaining Agreement prevents players from suing Goodell personally for claims of this nature. Judge Berrigan agreed with the league that, under federal law, Vilma could not sue Goodell directly, but that any remedies must be pursued under the CBA.
Vilma claimed that Goodell told lies about the player’s involvement in the bounty case. Even if the case had been permitted to proceed, Vilma would have been required to prove that Goodell knew that the information was false or that he acted with reckless disregard to whether the information was true of false, since Vilma is a public figure.
Vilma will have 30 days to file a notice of appeal.
Even if Vilma chooses not to continue the lawsuit, there are still a pair of loose ends in the bounty case. Saints coach Sean Payton and former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams will at some point apply for reinstatement. There’s no guarantee their requests will be granted.
Last month, all player suspensions were overturned by former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue.
UPDATE 7:20 p.m. ET: Vilma’s lawyer, Peter Ginsberg, tells PFT that Vilma is considering his options.
-----------
After dismissal of lawsuit, Vilma is considering his options
Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma has not reacted via Twitter to today’s dismissal of his defamation lawsuit against Commissioner Roger Goodell.
Vilma’s lawyer has provided a comment through more traditional means.
“We are obviously disappointed, strongly believe that the CBA does not give anyone — including a Commissioner — a license to misrepresent and to manufacture facts, especially at the expense of another person’s reputation,” lawyer Peter Ginsberg told PFT via email.
Ginsberg added that he and Vilma are “considering our options.”
The primary option at this point is to appeal the ruling to a higher federal court. Alternatively, Vilma could file a grievance under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The remedies most likely would be very limited.