Judge dismisses lawsuit involving Super Bowl XLV tickets
A dispute over 2011 Super Bowl tickets is a contract dispute, not a fraud case, because the four plaintiffs can't prove the National Football League and Dallas Cowboys intended to sell them tickets for seats that wouldn't be finished in time for the game featuring the Steelers and Packers, a federal judge ruled Friday in dismissing the case.
U.S. District Judge David Cercone also dismissed their contract claims because adding up each of the $800 tickets plus travel and hotel costs doesn't meet the $75,000 threshold required to bring an interstate contract case into federal court instead of state court.
Four people who bought tickets through the Steelers' lottery for season ticket holders sued the NFL and Cowboys in February 2012. A jury trial in separate federal lawsuit by hundreds of ticket holders is scheduled to start in Dallas in October.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Rossi: Rutherford falling apart, too
- Full basketball court to return to White Oak playground
- Cubs’ rookie third baseman Bryant helps send Pirates to defeat
- Liberty asks diocese not to close church
- Rangers clip Penguins, take 2-1 series lead
- LaBar: WWE bans finishing move of top star
- Avonmore man jailed on charges of stealing three cars Sunday
- Mon-Yough authorities investigate heroin, Fentanyl overdoses
- McKeesport’s Auberle honors its all-stars at banquet
- Question Armstrong County candidates at forum in Manor
- Steelers receiver Brown skipping voluntary offseason workouts