McPherson v. Tennessee Football, Inc. Doc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE

ADRIAN McPHERSON, )
) Case No. 3:07-cv-0002
Plaintiff, )
) Judge Haynes
vs. ) Magistrate Judge Griffin
)
TENNESSEE FOOTBALL, INC., )
d/b/a TENNESSEE TITANS, ) JURY DEMAND
)
Defendant. )

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

I. Introduction

On January 3, 2007, Defendant Tennessee Football, Inc. d/b/a The Tennessee

Titans (“the Titans”) removed the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Adrian McPherson

(“McPherson”) from the Davidson County Circuit Court to this Court. See Docket

Entry No. 1. It did so pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 because Plaintiff’s

tort claim is completely preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management

Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 141 et seq. The resolution of McPherson’s claim for

physical injuries against the Titans is substantially dependent upon an

interpretation of, and is inextricably intertwined with the collective bargaining

agreement to which McPherson and the Titans are parties. Federal jurisdiction

exists here, the Motion to Remand should be denied and the lawsuit dismissed.1

1 The Titans filed a Motion to Dismiss contemporaneously with this Response.

1320879.1
Case 3:07-cv-00002 Document 8 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 1 of 16
Dockets.Justia.com
 II. Procedural Background

On December 15, 2006, McPherson filed suit against the Titans in the Circuit

Court for Davidson County, Tennessee. See Docket Entry No. 1 at Ex. A.

McPherson, a professional football player previously employed by the New Orleans

Saints (“the Saints”) of the National Football League (“NFL”), avers that he was

injured during a football game between the Saints and the Titans. See Docket

Entry No. 1 at Ex. A at ¶¶ 4, 5, 7. Claiming the Titans negligently supervised its

employee mascot who injured him, McPherson seeks his lost income, compensatory

and punitive damages. Id.

The Titans timely removed the Complaint to this Court on January 3, 2007,2

because McPherson’s tort claim was completely preempted by Section 301 of the

LMRA,3 thus providing the Court with subject matter jurisdiction. See Docket

Entry No. 1 at ¶ 6. McPherson’s invocation of the judicial system’s traditional tort

remedies ignores the no fault injury compensation provisions and dispute resolution

processes of the CBA for which McPherson’s union collectively bargained and to

which McPherson and the Titans agreed to be bound.

2 McPherson did not serve the Titans with a copy of the Complaint and summons until January 11,

2007. The Titans obtained a copy of the lawsuit from PACER.

3 Section 301 provides in relevant part as follows:

(a) Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization
representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or
between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United
States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or
without regard to the citizenship of the parties.

28 U.S.C. § 185(a).

1320879.1
2
Case 3:07-cv-00002 Document 8 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 2 of 16
 On January 29, 2007, McPherson filed a pleading styled “Plaintiff’s Response

to Defendant’s Notice of Removal Alternatively Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.”

Docket Entry No. 7. Relying solely upon an opinion of the Southern District of New

York, Brown v. National Football League, 219 F. Supp. 2d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), and

ignoring the multiple cases finding complete preemption of a professional football

player’s claim against an NFL team, McPherson contends that his cause of action

“does not require interpretation of the CBA and only implicates the ordinary

concepts of negligence and the improper conduct of the Tennessee Titans mascot.”

Docket Entry No. 7 at ¶ 10. McPherson’s arguments are contrary to the law of the

United States Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, ignore the

critical factual and legal differences between the instant case and Brown v. NFL

and must be rejected as a matter of law.

III. Factual Background

McPherson was employed by the Saints as a professional football player

during the 2005 NFL Season and a portion of the 2006 NFL Season. Docket Entry

No. 1 at Ex. A at ¶ 5. As a player/employee of the Saints, McPherson was a

member of the National Football League Players Association (“the NFLPA”), as are

all other player/employees in the NFL. Affidavit of Steve Underwood (“Underwood

Affidavit”) at ¶ 2; Affidavit of Mickey Loomis (“Loomis Affidavit”) at ¶ 2. As the sole

and exclusive bargaining representative of such players, and on their behalf, the

NFLPA entered into a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with the National

Football League Management Council (“NFLMC”), the sole and exclusive

1320879.1
3
Case 3:07-cv-00002 Document 8 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 3 of 16
bargaining representative of members clubs of the NFL, which includes among its

members both the Titans and the Saints. Underwood Affidavit at ¶ 3 and Ex. 1 at

3. NFL players and NFL teams are bound by the terms and conditions of the CBA,

including the grievance procedure and arbitration process described therein

regarding injuries incurred in the course and scope of employment. Id. at 22-32.

As a player/employee of the Saints, McPherson participated in the August 12,

2006 preseason football game between the Saints and the Titans. See Docket Entry

No. 1 at Ex. A at ¶ 7. While McPherson was getting ready for the second half by

retrieving punts from the Saints punter, he ran into a golf cart being driven by

T-Rac, the Titans’ mascot. Underwood Affidavit at ¶ 4. According to statements

provided by McPherson to the press, he suffered only knee bruises as a result of his

collision, see id. at ¶ 5 and Ex. 4, just as if he had run into a goal post or been

tackled by an opposing player. As a result, McPherson was placed on the Saints’

Injured Reserve list and continued to receive his full pay – more than Sixty

Thousand Dollars – while he recuperated. Loomis Affidavit at ¶ 5.

In October of 2006, the Saints determined that McPherson was no longer

suffering from the injuries that he received in the Saints – Titans football game. Id.

at ¶ 4. Thereafter, the Saints placed McPherson on waivers and his NFL Player

Contract with the Saints was terminated on October 11, 2006. Id. McPherson did

not file a grievance against either the Saints or the Titans regarding his injuries

during the Saints – Titans game or the separation of his employment. Id. at ¶ 6;

Underwood Affidavit at ¶ 8.

1320879.1
4
Case 3:07-cv-00002 Document 8 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 4 of 16
 According to NFL records, after McPherson was released from employment

by the Saints, he participated in a football tryout with the New York Giants on

October 30, 2006 and with the Kansas City Chiefs on December 19, 2006.

Underwood Affidavit at ¶ 6. McPherson is currently under contract with the Austin

Wranglers of the Arena Football League. Id. at ¶ 7.

IV. Legal Analysis

To determine whether removal is proper, the Court must “ascertain the

substantive underpinnings of the plaintiff’s claim.” 14 Moore’s Fed. Prac. § 81.04[1]

at 81-11 (Mathew Bender 3d ed.). “The courts are cognizant of the fact that a

plaintiff may seek to hide a federal claim in the complaint by using carefully drafted

language. Therefore, the court will look beyond the language of the complaint to

determine the appropriateness of removal.” Id. If removal is proper, the Court

must deny a motion to remand as a matter of law.

A. PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW CLAIMS

Complaints originally filed in state court may be removed to federal court

only if the case could have been filed, in the first instance, in federal court. See 28

U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal jurisdiction typically exists where a federal question is

presented on the face of a complaint. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,

392 (1987). However, as the Court well knows, the “complete preemption” doctrine

is an exception to the “well pleaded complaint rule.” Beneficial Nat. Bank v.

Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 8 (2003). The theory behind the doctrine is that “the

preemptive force of a statute is so ‘extraordinary’ that it ‘converts an ordinary state

1320879.1
5
Case 3:07-cv-00002 Document 8 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 5 of 16
common-law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes of the well-

pleaded complaint rule.’” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393 (quoting Metro. Life Ins. Co.

v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 65 (1987)). That is the exact result dictated here.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes that Section 301 of the LMRA

has an unusually powerful preemptive force over a claim for relief sought

exclusively under state law. See Alongi v. Ford Motor Co., 386 F.3d 716, 723-24 (6th

Cir. 2004). It is well established that Section 301 completely preempts state law

claims, including tort law claims, that involve the interpretation of a collective

bargaining agreement. United Steelworkers of Am. v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362, 368-

69 (1990). This must be so, for “if the policies that animate § 301 are to be given

their proper range, … the preemptive effect of § 301 must extend beyond suits

alleging contract violations. These policies require that ‘the relationships created

by [a collective-bargaining] agreement’ be defined by application of ‘an evolving

federal common law grounded in national labor policy.’” Allis-Chalmers Corp. v.

Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 210-11 (1985) (brackets in internal quote in original) (quoting

Bowen v. United States Postal Serv., 459 U.S. 212, 225 (1983)).

Section 301 preemption jurisprudence is familiar. “When resolution of a

state-law claim is substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of an

agreement made between the parties in a labor contract, that claim must either be

treated as a § 301 claim, or dismissed as preempted by federal labor-contract law.”

Allis-Chalmers, 471 U.S. at 220. In Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., the

United States Supreme Court noted that “[i]f the resolution of a state-law claim

1320879.1
6
Case 3:07-cv-00002 Document 8 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 6 of 16
depends upon the meaning of a collective bargaining agreement, the application of

state law … is preempted and federal labor-law principles – necessarily uniform

throughout the Nation – must be employed to resolve the dispute.” 486 U.S. 399,

406-07 (1988).

“Once an area of state law has been completely pre-empted, any claim

purportedly based on that pre-empted state law is considered, from its inception, a

federal claim and therefore arises under federal law.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393.

Thus, state law claims preempted by Section 301 are properly removable to federal

court, despite a plaintiff’s failure to explicitly plead a federal cause of action. See

Lingle, 486 U.S. at 406 n.5.

In this Circuit, the Supreme Court’s Section 301 preemption precedent of

Allis-Chalmers and Lingle has evolved into a two part test:

First, courts must determine whether resolving the state-law claims

would require interpretation of the terms of the collective bargaining
agreement. If so, the claim is preempted. Second, courts must
ascertain whether the rights claimed by the plaintiff were created by
the collective bargaining agreement, or instead by state law. … If the
rights were created by the collective bargaining agreement, the claim
is preempted. In short, if a state-law claim fails either of these two
requirements, it is preempted by § 301.

Mattis v. Massman, 355 F.3d 902, 906 (6th Cir. 2004) (emphasis in original).

McPherson’s tort claim fails both.

1320879.1
7
Case 3:07-cv-00002 Document 8 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 7 of 16
 B. MCPHERSON’S STATE LAW CLAIM IS PREEMPTED BY
SECTION 301.

McPherson’s negligence claim is preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA

because it cannot be resolved without interpreting and applying the CBA. Indeed,

federal courts that have considered the precise issue raised by McPherson –

whether an NFL player can recover in tort from an NFL team for injuries incurred

in the course and scope of his professional duties in the NFL – uniformly have ruled

that such disputes require the interpretation and application of the CBA and thus

must be resolved pursuant to the grievance process and arbitration provisions to

which the parties to the CBA agreed. See, e.g., Smith v. Houston Oilers, Inc., 87

F.3d 717, 720-721 (5th Cir. 1996) (dismissing state law claims of coercion, duress,

extortion, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of NFL

players’ purported injuries from their participation in rehabilitation program by

NFL team because claims were preempted by Section 301); Sherwin v. Indianapolis

Colts, Inc., 752 F. Supp. 1172, 1178 (N.D.N.Y. 1990) (dismissing state law claims for

negligence, medical malpractice, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and negligent

infliction of emotional distress arising out of NFL player’s purported injuries and

treatment thereof by NFL team doctors because claims were preempted by Section

301); Rudnay v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12595,

*6-7 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 19, 1983) (dismissing state law claim for breach of contract and

tortuous interference with contract arising out of NFL player’s purported injuries

against NFL team because claims were preempted by Section 301) (copy attached).

McPherson’s claim – and legal result thereof – is no different here.

1320879.1
8
Case 3:07-cv-00002 Document 8 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 8 of 16
 Federal courts must apply Section 301 preemption broadly to “ensure

uniform interpretation of collective bargaining agreements.” Lingle, 486 U.S at 404.

In Allis-Chalmers, the Supreme Court explained that Section 301 is not merely a

jurisdictional provision, but is a “congressional mandate to the federal courts to

fashion a body of federal common law to be used to address disputes arising out of

labor contracts.” 471 U.S. at 209. Thus, any state law tort claim by an employee

that is “inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of [a] labor

contract” – including matters that may be fairly “implied” from the labor agreement

– is completely preempted by Section 301. Id. at 213, 215. If federal law did not

preempt all such claims, whether expressly or impliedly arising out of the parties’

labor agreement, then McPherson could easily evade the preemptive force of Section

301 simply by relabeling his claim as sounding in tort and thus avoid the parties’

agreement to have an arbitrator interpret the parties’ obligations. Id. at 211, 219.

Viewed against the applicable standards, McPherson’s state law tort claim is

preempted clearly by Section 301.

1. The Remedy of Damages Sought by

McPherson is Contrary to the Remedy For
Football Related Injuries Agreed Upon by the
Parties in the CBA.

The CBA provides that a player’s remedy for football related injuries that are

serious enough to prevent him from playing football is to be paid his full salary for

certain periods of time. McPherson received that remedy but now wants more. He

should be required to abide by the agreement of the parties as provided in the CBA.

1320879.1
9
Case 3:07-cv-00002 Document 8 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 9 of 16
 It is without peradventure that the right of NFL players to recover lost

income due to football related injuries from NFL teams is created and defined

exclusively by the CBA. Paragraph 9 of the standardized NFL Player Contract4

provides in relevant part:

9. INJURY. Unless this contract specifically provides otherwise, if

Player is injured in the performance of his services under this contract
and promptly reports such injury to the Club physician or trainer, then
Player will receive such medical and hospital care during the term of
this contract as the Club physician may deem necessary, and will
continue to receive his yearly salary for so long, during the season of
injury only and for no subsequent period covered by this contract, as
Player is physically unable to perform the services required of him by
this contract.

Thus, under the CBA, the parties agreed that if a player is injured practicing or

playing football, he shall continue to be paid his full salary during the season in

which was injured until he recovers from his injury, notwithstanding the fact that

he is unable to play football. The CBA does not distinguish between a player who

is injured by another player, by running into a goal post, by being hit by an object

thrown from the stands or by colliding with a mascot, all of which occur “in the

performance of [the player’s] services” under the contract. Here, in accordance with

the above provisions of the standardized NFL Player Contract, the Saints paid and

McPherson accepted a total of $62,553.10 – every dollar to which he was entitled

under the CBA – while he was recovering from the injuries he received in the Saints

- Titans game. Loomis Affidavit at ¶ 5.

4 The standardized NFL Player Contract is actually part of the CBA and is attached to the CBA as
Appendix C. Article XIV, Section 1 of the CBA provides that the NFL Player Contract form attached
as Appendix C to the CBA must be used for all player signings. Because the CBA incorporates the
standardized NFL Player Contract, the agreements are considered together for purposes of
preemption analysis. Sherwin, 752 F. Supp. at 1177-78.

1320879.1
10
Case 3:07-cv-00002 Document 8 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 10 of 16
 Additionally, Article 17, Section 17.6 (C) of the NFL Constitution and

Bylaws5 requires that players placed on Injured Reserve continued to be

compensated at their full salary. Again, in accordance with the provisions of the

NFL Constitution and Bylaws, the Saints paid McPherson the full salary due him

under his NFL Player Contract while he was on Injured Reserve. See id. at ¶ 5.

Moreover, Article X, Section 1 of the CBA provides that a player’s contract may not

be terminated while he is injured if such injury was incurred in the performance of

work related duties, such as practicing or playing football. In accordance with such

provisions, the Saints allowed McPherson to fully recover from his injuries before

his contract was terminated. Id. at ¶ 4.

At its core, McPherson’s Complaint seeks to recover damages for injuries

received in the performance of his duties, which his exclusive bargaining agent, the

NFLPA, negotiated would be limited to his salary, which he received. If McPherson

believes that he is entitled to any other damages from the Titans or the New

Orleans Saints or any other NFL team, he must pursue them pursuant to the

grievance and arbitration dispute resolution process set forth in the CBA.

McPherson accepted without reservation the compensation and benefits due

him under the CBA for the injuries that he received in the Saints - Titans game.

Yet, now McPherson seeks more compensation and more benefits through the

judicial system. That is not right and it is not fair. As a matter of fact and law,

5 Article III, Section 1 of the CBA incorporates the NFL Constitution and Bylaws by reference and
provides in relevant part, “the NFLPA and the Management Council waive all rights to bargain with
one another concerning any subject covered or not covered in this Agreement, including the
provisions of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws; . . . .”

1320879.1
11
Case 3:07-cv-00002 Document 8 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 11 of 16
McPherson cannot accept the CBA’s benefits and then disclaim its obligations and

the Court should not permit him to do so.

2. Resolution of McPherson’s tort claim requires

interpretation of multiple provisions of the
CBA.

McPherson’s resort to the judicial process requires the Court to interpret the

CBA and determine, as a quick example, the following questions:

• Does McPherson’s decision to file suit against the Titans violate

the “no suit” provision of Article IV, Section 5?

• Does the Titans’ purported “failure to properly supervise and

train its employees and agents to perform [their] duties in a safe
and reasonable manner” constitute non-compliance with the
CBA in violation of Article IX, Section 1?

• Does McPherson’s failure to file either a non-injury or injury

grievance against the Titans pursuant to Article IX or Article X,
respectively, bar his claim for damages for a football related
injury against the Titans?

• Does the payment of any amount of money by an NFL club to an

NFL player other than that to which the player is contractually
entitled under his employment agreement (e.g., as “damages” in
a tort lawsuit) violate Article XIV, Section 5(c)?

• Does a payment of damages to an NFL player for “loss of

earnings and earning capacity” and “lost wages” violate
paragraph 3 of the NFL Player Contract, which is incorporated
into the CBA?

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the parties agreed in Articles IX and X

of the CBA that NFL players would resolve their disputes against NFL teams

through the grievance process and arbitration procedures. McPherson’s claim

against the Titans also requires the Court to parse the language of the CBA to

determine what duty an NFL team owes to an NFL player on an opposing team

1320879.1
12
Case 3:07-cv-00002 Document 8 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 12 of 16
because there is no free-standing duty owed by an NFL team to a player on an

opposing club during a football game. To find otherwise would create an avalanche

of litigation by NFL players (and for that matter, by any professional athlete)

against opposing NFL teams for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their

professional duties. That is an absurd result and the Titans’ research has not

revealed any case in which a court has recognized such a cause of action. Indeed, in

Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 601 F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1979), the Tenth

Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that “subjecting another to unreasonable risk of

harm, the essence of negligence, is inherent in the game of football, for admittedly it

is violent.” Id. at 520; see also Gauvin v. Clark, 537 N.E.2d 94, 96 (Mass. 1989)

(noting that the “courts are wary of imposing wide tort liability on sports

participants, lest the law chill the vigor of athletic competition.”).

McPherson’s claim fails both requirements of the Sixth Circuit’s preemption

test. See Mattis, 355 F.3d at 906.

C. Brown v. National Football League does not Save

McPherson’s Claim from Preemption.

In sole support of his Motion to Remand, McPherson relies upon and quotes

extensively from the Southern District of New York’s opinion in Brown v. National

Football League, 219 F. Supp. 2d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), but ignores completely the

line of cases in which courts have held professional football player’s state law claims

to be completely preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA.6 While at first glance the

6 See, e.g., Smith, 87 F.3d at 720-721; Sherwin, 752 F. Supp. at 1178; Rudnay 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
12595 at *6-7.

1320879.1
13
Case 3:07-cv-00002 Document 8 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 13 of 16
Brown decision appears helpful to McPherson’s argument, upon closer reflection it

is not.

The plaintiff in Brown sued the NFL, not the team for which he was playing

or the team he was playing against. That difference is critically important because

the Preamble to the CBA specifically recognizes that the parties to it are the

NFLPA and the NFLMC. Underwood Affidavit at ¶¶ 2-3 and Ex. 1 at 3. The NFL

is not a party to the CBA. Id. Indeed, the Brown court focused on that fact, noting

that the NFL’s preemption claim was “dubious” because “the NFL is neither

Brown’s employer nor a party to the CBA.” Brown, 219 F. Supp. 2d at 383. Of

course a non-party to a collective bargaining agreement could not enforce the terms

and conditions of that collective bargaining agreement against someone who was

party to it.7 A contrary result would defy common sense and black letter contract

law. Here, the Titans seek to enforce the terms of the CBA to which both the

Titans and McPherson, as well as all NFL teams and player/employees, are bound.

That is markedly different from what the NFL tried to do in Brown.

Importantly, the Brown court recognized that “a CBA might well define the

nature of the duty of care owed to employees, or the remedies available to them for

breaches of that duty; a union might well waive a right to sue in return for other

concessions, or bargain collectively over the standard of care required and the

7 The same result, of course, obtains under McPherson’s hypothetical scenario in which the Titans’
mascot injures a patron, and his rhetorical question of whether that patron could sue in state court
for the tortious acts. Assuming the patron did not waive his right to sue by some contractual
agreement, of course the patron could file suit. The CBA would not be implicated in that
hypothetical situation because the patron was not a party to it and would not have received – as
McPherson did here – compensation pursuant to its terms and conditions. Absent resort to the
judicial system, the patron, unlike McPherson here who could have filed a grievance and proceeded
to arbitration, would have no other remedy to redress the tortious acts.

1320879.1
14
Case 3:07-cv-00002 Document 8 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 14 of 16
dangers or risks assumed by its members.” Id. at 382-83. For whatever reason,

however, the Brown court took that analysis no further. This Court can, should and

indeed must in order to determine whether McPherson can pursue his tort claim

against the Titans when he has received all the benefits for injuries incurred in the

performance of his professional duties. The NFLPA and the NFLMA bargained at

arms length for benefits and promises from one another, including a no-fault

compensation system. McPherson has enjoyed the benefits of that system and

should not be permitted to seek more benefits, outside that system, just because he

thinks he should get more money than that to which his exclusive bargaining agent

agreed.

V. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, McPherson’s Motion to Remand should be denied.

s/Mark W. Peters
Robert E. Boston, Tenn. BPR # 9744
Mark W. Peters, Tenn. BPR # 18422
WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP
511 Union Street, Suite 2700
Nashville City Center
Nashville, TN 37219
(615) 244-6380 (telephone)
(615) 244-6804 (facsimile)
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Defendant

1320879.1
15
Case 3:07-cv-00002 Document 8 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 15 of 16
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served
electronically, by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system, upon James R.
Krenis, Hill-Boren PC, 191 Jefferson Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, on this
the 31st day of January, 2007.

s/Mark W. Peters
Robert E. Boston, Tenn. BPR # 9744
Mark W. Peters, Tenn. BPR # 18422
WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP
511 Union Street, Suite 2700
Nashville City Center
Nashville, TN 37219
(615) 244-6380 (telephone)
(615) 244-6804 (facsimile)
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Defendant

1320879.1
16
Case 3:07-cv-00002 Document 8 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 16 of 16