{"id":2191,"date":"2025-05-12T08:57:42","date_gmt":"2025-05-12T12:57:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2191"},"modified":"2025-05-12T08:57:43","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T12:57:43","slug":"new-york-federal-court-serves-the-association-of-tennis-professionals-atp-with-corrective-notice-for-coercive-communications-with-class-members","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/05\/12\/new-york-federal-court-serves-the-association-of-tennis-professionals-atp-with-corrective-notice-for-coercive-communications-with-class-members\/","title":{"rendered":"New York Federal Court Serves The Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) With Corrective Notice For Coercive Communications With Class Members"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Nathan Berkebile, and Alek Smolij<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/em> <\/strong><\/a>On May 7, 2025, in Pospisil, et al. v. ATP Tour, Inc., et al.<\/em>, 25 Civ. 02207, 2025 WL 1327363<\/em> (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2025), Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part<\/a> Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for relief under Rule 23(d) regarding Defendants\u2019 communications with putative class members.\u00a0<\/em>The lawsuit \u2013 brought by professional tennis players and The Professional Tennis Players Association \u2013 challenges the Defendants\u2019 alleged anticompetitive practices in running professional tennis tours.\u00a0 Plaintiffs had sought an order preventing all Defendants from communicating with putative class members about the litigation.\u00a0 While the Court stopped short of granting that broad relief, it prohibited Defendant ATP from retaliating or threatening retaliation against potential class members and ordered ATP to issue a corrective notice to putative class members.\u00a0 This ruling serves as a reminder to employers defending class action lawsuits to tread carefully when communicating with potential class members about the litigation. Ensure that any statements you wish to make to employees about the pending lawsuit are vetted by outside counsel to avoid any appearance of coercion. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On March 18, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action on behalf of professional tennis players against Defendants (ATP and other professional tennis organizations) alleging that Defendants engaged in anticompetitive practices in administering their professional tennis tours.  Id.<\/em> at *1.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief three days after filing the lawsuit, alleging that the day after they filed their Complaint, ATP engaged in coercive communications with putative class members (professional tennis players) during the Miami Open tournament.  Id.<\/em> at *2. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that a member of Defendant ATP\u2019s Board of Directors approached various players with a pen asking them to sign a statement denouncing the litigation filed by Plaintiffs.  Id.<\/em>  Plaintiffs argued that this action, coupled with Defendants\u2019 near-total control of the putative class\u2019s ability to earn a living as professional tennis players, was unduly coercive and entitled Plaintiffs to relief under Rule 23(d), including a restriction on Defendants\u2019 ability to engage in any future communications with putative class members.  Id.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On April 11, 2025, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for relief that included testimony from Plaintiffs, as well as from the ATP representative who allegedly approached putative class members during the Miami Open.  Id.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s Order<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court granted Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for relief in part, and prohibited ATP from retaliating or threatening retaliation against any of its members who are participating (or considering participating) in the putative class action.  The Court further directed ATP to distribute a corrective notice drafted by the Court to all putative class members who are members of ATP, and to preserve all documents related to its efforts to communicate with its members concerning the litigation.  Id.<\/em> at *12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiffs had moved for relief under Rule 23(d), which courts can use to protect putative class members from misleading communications about the pending lawsuit that would pose a threat to the fairness of the litigation process.  Id.<\/em> at *2.  The Court noted that its authority to regulate communications under Rule 23(d) extended to communications in a situation where there is a relationship that is inherently coercive.  Id.<\/em> at *3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After weighing the parties\u2019 submissions and the live testimony at the evidentiary hearing, the Court held that regardless of ATP\u2019s intent in its communications with putative class members at the Miami Open, such communications could have been viewed as potentially coercive, deceptive, or abusive, which warranted limited relief under Rule 23(d).  Id.<\/em> at *4.  The Court found that ATP was the near-exclusive organizer of tournaments that allowed male professional tennis players to earn a living, and that ATP administered incentives for its players including bonus pools and retirement programs.  Id.<\/em> at *4-5.  The Court found that ATP had a near-total control over its members\u2019 compensation and benefits.  Id.<\/em> at *5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, reviewing the factual record as to ATP\u2019s conduct at the Miami Open, the Court found that ATP unilaterally targeted putative class members with information about the pending lawsuit in at least two instances.  Id.<\/em> at *6.  The Court noted that a member of ATP\u2019s Board approached players during the Miami Open with a pen in hand asking them to sign a position statement denouncing the lawsuit.  Id.<\/em>  The Court held that regardless of ATP\u2019s intent in this conduct, when paired with ATP\u2019s control over its members\u2019 livelihoods, it had a tendency to unduly influence putative class members and discourage them from participating in the class action.  Id. <\/em>at *8.  Moreover, the Court held that ATP\u2019s conduct in encouraging putative class members to sign a statement denouncing the lawsuit posed a threat to the fairness of the litigation process, the adequacy of representation, and the administration of justice generally.  Id.<\/em> at *9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the Court faulted ATP for its conduct, the Court held that Plaintiffs\u2019 requested relief was overbroad, in part because it sought to enjoin all Defendants from communicating with class members rather than just ATP.  Id. <\/em>at *11.  ATP was the sole Defendant whose conduct was at issue.  The Court noted that narrowly tailored relief was appropriate and granted Plaintiffs relief as to ATP by prohibiting ATP from retaliating or threatening retaliation against its members related to the litigation, requiring ATP to distribute a Court-drafted corrective notice to all of its members, and ordering ATP to preserve all communications related to its efforts to communicate with its members.  Id. <\/em>at *12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s ruling emphasizes the need for caution by employers when communicating with employees about pending class action lawsuits.  Employers hold an inherent position of power and often control the financial livelihood of their employees.  Accordingly, if an employer wishes to communicate with its employees about a pending class action lawsuit, those communications must be carefully scrutinized to avoid the appearance of coercion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Nathan Berkebile, and Alek Smolij Duane Morris Takeaways: On May 7, 2025, in Pospisil, et al. v. ATP Tour, Inc., et al., 25 Civ. 02207, 2025 WL 1327363 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2025), Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “New York Federal Court Serves The Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) With Corrective Notice For Coercive Communications With Class Members”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,43],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-2191","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","category-procedural-issues"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2191","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2191"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2191\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2191"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2191"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2191"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2191"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}