Judge dismisses lawsuit involving Super Bowl XLV tickets
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, March 15, 2013, 8:12 p.m.
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.
- Panthers free agent safety headed to Steelers
- Penguins notebook: Letang skating, but no return set
- Upper St. Clair man dies in crash of experimental airplane at Washington County Airport
- Seton-La Salle again ends GCC’s season in PIAA tournament
- Analysis: Steelers could fill needs with free agents while not spending big bucks
- Mars Area School Board rejects drilling proposal
- Robert Morris dominated by Mount St. Mary’s in NEC title game
- District college notebook: Pitt sophomore infielder Wolsonovich fuels upset of UNC
- Professor-turned-mystery author goes for character details
- Police charge Westmoreland County priest in $124,000 theft case
- Memo confirms VA Pittsburgh officials knew of Legionella threat long before made public