Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors
275 F.3d 1187
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2001-12-28
- Topic
- general
noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including . . . details contrary to his claims.” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including … details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including ... details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including ... details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including ... details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including ... details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including ... details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including . . . details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including ... details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including ... details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including . . . details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including . . . details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including . . . details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including . . . details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including ... details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including . . . details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including ... details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including ... details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including . . . details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including . . . details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including . . . details contrary to his claims” | 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 | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including ... details contrary to his claims” | noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including . . . details contrary to his claims” | “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.” | “Nor is the 11 court required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory. . . .” | “Nor is the court required to accept as true 23 allegations that are merely conclusory. . . .” | “Nor is the court required 17 to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory. . . .” | “We have held that a plaintiff can—as 13 Sprewell has done here—plead himself out of a claim by including unnecessary details 14 contrary to his claims.” | “Nor is the court required 22 10 Latin term meaning “in good faith,” made in
Citator
- Cited by
- 180 opinions
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.
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.