At first blush, the judgment awarded to the parents of a fallen baseball player is enough to make a tort reformer vomit. The Helena Independent Record reports (gavel bang: Overlawyered):

After 12 hours of deliberation, a jury sided with the parents of former Miles City American Legion baseball pitcher Brandon Patch in a civil suit over the player’s death during a 2003 game in Helena.

Aluminum bat maker Hillerich & Bradsby Co. failed to provide adequate warning as to the dangers of the bat used by a Helena Senators player during the game, at least eight of the 12 Lewis and Clark County jurors agreed Wednesday.

Hillerich & Bradsby Co. was ordered to pay $792,000 to Patch’s estate, which is represented by his mother, Debbie Patch, who filed the suit.

The jury felt the bat makers should have had some kind of warning about the dangers of batted balls at high speeds.

Seriously? On first blush, this verdict makes me want to hunt down jury members, scream “warning, terrible judgments could result in you getting hit with a bat,” and play pepper using their eyeballs.

But in my homicidal fantasy, I’m hitting eyeball grounders with a wooden bat, not an aluminum one. Are aluminum bats different, in a way that might partially explain the verdict?

More details after the jump.

What would you do to score World Series tickets? If you aren’t willing to do what this Philadelphia Phillies fan had in mind, then you aren’t really trying. Earlier this week, the New York Post reported:

A rabid Philadelphia fan — apparently believing the “P” on the team’s cap stands for “prostitution” — was busted yesterday for offering sex in exchange for World Series tickets, police said.

Susan Finkelstein, 43, was nabbed after allegedly soliciting an undercover Bensalem, Pa., cop who answered her innuendo-laced craigslist ad seeking the coveted ducats.

CBS has a full photo spread of Susan Finkelstein, in case you have two spare tickets for Saturday.

That’s right, she needs two. One for herself, and one for her husband.

UPDATE: Actually, it seems that she no longer needs tickets for the next game. (Gavel bang: commenter.)

Allegations after the jump.

A battle went down the other day on a basketball court at Gregory Gym on the University of Texas - Austin campus. It’s a battle that has been fought across time and generations. It pitted a freshman defensive back from the Texas Longhorns (ranked #2 in the latest Associated Press Top 25 poll) and a UT law student (ranked #15 in the latest U.S. News law school rankings). Who hasn’t been a part of a strong kid v. smart kid fight?

The football player is freshman Kenny Vaccaro. The law student is Jonathon Fuhrman. The Austin-American Statesman takes it from here:

Fuhrman, who is identified as a UT student, told police Vaccaro and his friends were throwing basketballs at him. The affidavit said Fuhrman threw a basketball back at Vaccaro, hitting him in the head.

Fuhrman said Vaccaro then punched him in the face. The affidavit stated that Fuhrman, when he was interviewed by police, had blood coming from a cut lip.

Guys at my high school used to throw basketballs at future legal scholars all of the time. Then they would make love to all the women and be treated like gods. But now they all have multiple out-of-wedlock children and/or priors, while the future legal scholars enjoy prosperous careers and fulfilling romantic relationships. It was no big deal.

Will Vaccaro get punished for this? I’ll share some painful childhood memories, after the jump.

This Sunday marks Michael Vick’s official return to the National Football League—an event that has been widely criticized by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (“PETA”), as well as some sports writers and doggie bloggers.

What those who criticize NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell for reinstating Vick fail to understand, however, is that the NFL may have ultimately lacked any real choice. Had the NFL not reinstated Vick, Vick could have potentially filed an antitrust lawsuit against the 32 NFL clubs for concertedly refusing to deal with him. Even though such a lawsuit would have likely failed in the Second and Seventh Circuits (due to the holdings respectively in the Clarett and American Needle cases), a lawsuit against the NFL clubs would have likely gotten to a jury in the Third, Sixth, Eighth and D.C. Circuits—all places where professional athletes have previously won large antitrust settlements.

As a quick background in antitrust law, Section 1 of the Sherman Act, in pertinent part, states that “[e]very contract, combination … or conspiracy in the restraint of trade or commerce … is declared to be illegal.” Although most Section 1 claims involve restraints of trade related to product markets, the Sherman Act likewise prohibits restraints in labor markets, as long as these restraints occur outside of the proper workings of a collective bargaining agreement (“non-statutory labor exemption”).

Courts in general determine whether a particular restraint violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act in three steps. First, courts will determine whether a particular restraint emerges from a “contract, combination or … conspiracy” among two or more parties. Next, they will determine whether the restraint yields a net anticompetitive effect to consumers. Finally, they will assess whether any antitrust exemption would negate the finding of liability.

After the jump, how might a court weigh these factors?

For those who have been following the Supreme Court case American Needle v. NFL (previously blogged about in more detail here, here, and here), this Friday clothing manufacturer American Needle Inc. will file its opening brief, arguing that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong to define the NFL as a single-entity under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

As many of you know, I have long agreed with American Needle’s view that the NFL should be treated as a collection of 32 separate clubs, and not as a single entity. To me, this issue was best resolved by the Second Circuit back in the 1982 case North American Soccer League v. Nat’l Football League, in which that court held “the sound and more just procedure is to judge the legality of [sports league] restraints according to well-recognized standards of our antitrust laws rather than permit their exemption.”

Currently, the Second Circuit’s view remains in the overwhelming majority, as seven previous courts have upheld this view and rejected the NFL clubs’ single-entity argument. The Seventh Circuit meanwhile remains alone in its iconoclastic position that single-entity status should be determined one league at a time, one function at a time.

American Needle’s counsel on this matter in the law firm Jones Day. The National Football League meanwhile is represented by Covington & Burling LLC—a firm where former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue serves as Senior Of Counsel.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Marc Edelman is a Professor at Barry Law School in Orlando, FL. He previously was a Visiting Professor at Rutgers School of Law-Camden. His bio is available here, and his publications, here.

Who can forget Quinn Emanuel’s victory in the 17-year-long dispute over the name “Redskins”? Above the Law readers will remember Robert Raskopf’s happy victory email … and the first-year associate who had a problem with the firm’s representation of the Washington Football club. The first year was (eek!) fired for reasons unrelated to his disagreement with the firm’s position.

But is the firm’s position as strong as Raskopf thought? The Blog of the Legal Times reports that the Redskins case has made it all the way to the Supreme Court:

The long-running dispute over the appropriateness of the “Redskins” name for the Washington D.C. NFL football franchise reached the Supreme Court today. Philip Mause, partner at Drinker Biddle & Reath in D.C., representing a group of Native Americans offended by the name, filed a petition for certiorari in the case titled Susan Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc.

Was Raskopf’s victory email premature? More details, plus an UPDATE about the Native Americans’ game plan if SCOTUS doesn’t want to play, after the jump.

We don’t know who Rick Pitino is — his Wikipedia entry suggests he’s a college basketball coach — or why he’s important. We don’t know anything about sports. Elie, come back from vacation; we need you!

What we do know, and what makes Rick Pitino relevant for these pages, is that he was supposed to speak at Cumberland School of Law at Samford University — until his appearance was canceled. The law school administration sent out this brief message:

Coach Pitino and Samford University have mutually agreed to cancel the luncheon scheduled for September 10, 2009 at the Harbert Center. If you have already made payment for this event, your check will be returned to you.

Many readers alerted us to this development (which is why we decided to write about it). One tipster told us:

Cumberland School of Law at Samford University was going to have Coach Pitino visit next month. Normally, this may not be a big deal, but Samford is a Baptist School. It could have been an interesting luncheon…

If you know (or care) more about Rick Pitino than we do, read more at Deadspin and NPR.

Rick Pitino Deemed Unworthy Of Samford Law School’s Leadership Luncheon [Deadspin]
Rick Pitino Embroiled In Extortion Case [NPR]

Kirk Herbstreit, ESPN commentator and former quarterback of The Ohio State University football team, let the fire department burn down his house. As fans from Michigan know, this is classic Buckeye behavior.

Herbstreit thought he’d get a tax deduction for his charitable gift of flammable substances. “Not so fast, my friends.”

Click on the link below to read the full story.

IRS Doesn’t Care for Kirk Herbstreit Burning Down His Own House [Going Concern]

We already mentioned the Erin Andrews situation this morning. The ESPN anchor was spied on through a peephole at a hotel. Andrews is considering her actions, and she has retained counsel. Bingham McCutchen will be taking on this high-profile case.

Here is the statement from Bingham’s Marshall B. Grossman:

While alone in the privacy of her hotel room, Erin Andrews was surreptitiously videotaped without her knowledge or consent. She was the victim of a crime and is taking action to protect herself and help ensure that others are not similarly violated in the future. Although the perpetrator or perpetrators of this criminal act have not yet been identified, when they are identified she intends to bring both civil and criminal charges against them and against anyone who has published the material. We request respect of Erin’s privacy at this time, while she and her representatives are working with the authorities.

One of these days, the people who snap this kind of footage and the publishers who make it available are going to get smacked down, hard.

Johann Scott Scrimshire is a Minneapolis attorney who likes to let it all hang out. He specializes in criminal defense and business corporate law, but is apparently unfamiliar with laws dealing with public nudity. From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Johann Scott Scrimshire, 42, was arrested about 6 a.m. near Calhoun Parkway after a 911 call about a man on a bicycle exposing himself to walkers and joggers.

The officers who responded said Scrimshire told them he was training for a bike race on the West Coast in which participants ride nude, said Sgt. William Palmer, a Minneapolis police spokesman.

The officers said Scrimshire was wearing a skirt-like garment or a pair of shorts with the crotch area removed. Palmer said. “It clearly looked intentional,” he said.

Clearly.

Apparently, Scrimshire is training for the World Naked Bike Ride (moderately NSFW), an organization that holds naked bike rides in cities around the globe. The photo on this post is from the organization’s D.C. event. From the website, it doesn’t appear to be a very serious event; we wonder if others have been moved to don special “skirt-like” training gear in order to prepare.

Other than naked riding, we’re not sure what Scrimshire is up to these days. He used to be the primary name partner at personal injury firm Martineau, Gonko, & Vavreck — its website address still bears his initial: SMGV — but the firm tells us he left in April. Beyond that, the firm had no comment, and was not especially happy about this “exposure.”

As for Scrimshire, he tells the Tribune: “The charges are ridiculous, and the facts will come out in court.” We hope the facts are all that Scrimshire decides to put on display in court.

Cyclist arrested while training for naked bike race, police say [Minneapolis Star Tribune]

This year’s batch of summer associates are roughing it at Biglaw summer camp, with fewer meals out on the firm and less lavish events. To make matters worse, some summers are being told now that their future job will be deferred. Summer associates at Skadden and Ropes & Gray have been informed that they can’t come back to the camping ground until 2011. Tents can’t be repitched at Orrick until 2012.

This seems like a good time to focus on the light side of the summer associate experience. For the past month, we’ve been soliciting entries for our Summer Associate Event Contest of 2009. They came trickling in slowly, whether because there aren’t many events to brag about or because summer associates are too busy (or too scared) to email us. One SA was so fearful of “tipping” us that the announcement about the firm’s event was sent anonymously via snail mail. [FN1]

One ATL reader from a small firm had this to say about the environment at firms this summer:

Our firm does a lot of corporate bankruptcy work, so we’re faring better in this economic storm than most, but we had to scale back our summer associate program a bit. We do not have as many summer associates as we used to, and we are not having as many major, expensive events. No more big-ticket concerts; no more dinner theater on a river boat; no more renting out an entire movie theater for a pre-release movie showing….

Certainly, the difficulties of this economy are showing in the makeup of our summer class: because we have a summer program at all (unlike many law firms), we’re getting students from higher ranked schools. Most of them are from Top 20 law schools, all of them from Top 75 law schools, none of them from the fourth-tier local law school that usually supplies some of our summer class. And our summer associates are noticeably more stressed about the experience and their prospects than I’ve seen in the past 10 summers.

Despite the foregoing, we have a nice selection of events for the contest. We ask you to vote on the best one, plus offer a few honorable mentions (for events involving public urination and broken bones), after the jump.

Yesterday morning, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case American Needle v. National Football League (pdf, p.3) for purposes of determining whether the NFL clubs’ collective licensing of individual club trademarks is exempt from antitrust scrutiny under the single entity defense. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case was likely influenced by the fact that it marks one of just a few times that both a plaintiff and defendant have requested the Court’s review.

Earlier this month, the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission had filed an amicus brief recommending that the Supreme Court deny certiorari. The United States had argued the Seventh Circuit’s holding in American Needle did not conflict with existing case law—a view with which most sports-antitrust scholars disagree.

For those who have not been following the American Needle case, the original plaintiff, American Needle Inc., had for more than twenty years maintained a non-exclusive license to design and manufacture headgear bearing the NFL clubs’ names and logos. Then, nine years ago, the NFL clubs decided to offer an exclusive license to American Needle’s main rival, Reebok.

Upon being foreclosed from the ability to sell NFL headgear, American Needle sued the NFL clubs in the Northern District of Illinois, contending that the new NFL licensing arrangement violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by illegally restraining trade in the market for purchasing rights to NFL logos. The NFL clubs, in turn, responded by not only alleging that their licensing arrangement was pro-competitive under antitrust law’s Rule of Reason, but also by contending that the NFL clubs combined to form a single-entity that was entirely exempt from antitrust scrutiny. Both the district court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted summary judgment to the NFL clubs based on the single-entity theory.

But can all 32 NFL teams act as one? Analysis after the jump.

We’ve written before about a unique perk for the attorneys in Venable’s D.C. office. Like many firms, the office has a rooftop with amazing views of the nation’s capital. Unlike most firms, it also has a rooftop bocce court.

The bocce balling and Venable’s representation of Michael Jackson led us to ask at the time whether the firm is DC’s weirdest. We hear the attorneys there were actually thrilled with the superlative.

Venable is proud of its bocce ball and touts its annual bocce tournament on its diversity page. This year’s tournament took place earlier this month. We came across an account of the bocce showdown:

Friday June 5 was the annual Bocce Happy Hour Kickoff. We take our Bocce Seriously - 64 teams in a “March madness” format. there are lots of rules, heckling, trash talking, and a prize. usually a month of free parking ($230) and your name inscribed on the Sir Francis Drake Trophy Cup. It’s big. oh AND you “get” to be Commissioner of the Tournament the following summer.

This year, the “Commissioner” decided to combine bocce March Madness with an American Idolish singing competition. Some of the bocce ballers got dressed up for their serenades, including “one guy dress[ed] up as Susan Boyle” who sang “Memories.” It sounds painful to us, but our narrator swears it was fun.

Read the full account of the bocce balling, karaoke singing, alcohol-fueled tournament, after the jump.

Back in February, the U.S. Supreme Court asked the acting solicitor general to file an amicus brief in the case American Needle Inc. v. National Football League — a move that seemed to indicate that the Supreme Court would soon hear oral arguments. Yesterday, however, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan did her best Jeff Feagles impersonation by filing a 22-page amicus brief (pdf) that ultimately attempted to punt this case off the Supreme Court’s docket. The brief, which was co-authored by the Federal Trade Commission, concluded that “[t]he petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.”

For those who have not been following the American Needle case, the original plaintiff, American Needle Inc., had for more than twenty years maintained a non-exclusive license to design and manufacture headgear bearing the NFL clubs’ names and logos. Then, nine years ago, the NFL clubs decided to offer an exclusive license to American Needle’s main rival, Reebok. American Needle thereafter sued the NFL clubs in the Northern District of Illinois, contending that the new NFL licensing arrangement violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by illegally restraining trade in the market for purchasing rights to NFL logos. The NFL clubs, in turn, responded by not only alleging that their licensing arrangement was pro-competitive under antitrust laws, but also by contending that the NFL clubs combined to form a single-entity that was entirely exempt from antitrust scrutiny.

Let’s take a look at the NFL’s “defensive line” after the jump.

If you are of a certain age, your first experience with Delaware was probably this:

But then you went to law school. And at some point, you learned this:

But now we are in the 21st century. And it’s not your father’s Delaware, not anymore.

After the jump, Delaware gets ready for football season.

“Not wanting to push her too fast, he rode her easy…. She got hot and wet, but too wet.”

That sounds like something you’d find in the pages of a soft-core porn novel. But no, instead you’ll find it in the non-sexily titled “MarineMax’s Motion To Dismiss Count X of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint,” filed in the Southern District of Florida last week.

Michael Krieger of Clear Marine Ventures has filed a breach of contract suit against boatmaker Brunswick Corporation and a host of other characters — including MarineMax — involved in the maintenance of his boat. MarineMax’s defense attorney, Jack Kallen, decided to have some fun in describing the nature of Krieger’s relationship with his sea vessel.

A footnote claims that the motion “is not intended or meant to titillate, but illuminate the unique relationship that an individual has with a vessel and the special, discriminating and demanding wants and needs of a wealthy individual, who was disappointed and dismayed with his purchase.” But titillate it does. Here’s an excerpt, via the Southern District of Florida Blog:

He first saw the model on line and in a promotional brochure (para. 13-15)…. Her glossy exterior, sculpted body, sophistication, bloodlines, not to mention the accolades of how she could perform, intrigued him, piqued his curiosity (para. 13-15; Exs A. and B. to second amended complaint). Needless to say, he needed to know more, meet her, ride her. He was excited (para. 22).

Suitable arrangements were made. Not wanting to push her too fast, he rode her easy (para. 36, 37). With her prominent front pushed up, her rear somewhat down, her performance was somewhat hesitant and resistant. But he was told she was a maiden, that he’d be her first owner (para. 40, 47).

We called the motion’s author, Jack Kallen, to find out why he decided to pen such a smutty motion. We told him we thought it was funny. “I hope the judge does too,” he replied. Read on, after the jump.

May 2009 must be a month of mixed emotions for Andrew Giuliani, son of former New York mayor (and unsuccessful presidential candidate) Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani the younger sued Duke University for kicking him off the golf team.

On the positive side, he graduated from Duke this month (even if he did miss the graduation ceremony). On the negative side, he lost his breach of contract case against Duke — and now, thanks to the humorous opinion by a little-known North Carolina judge, he’s being subjected to a quadruple bogey of humiliation.

Magistrate Judge Wallace Dixon dismissed Giuliani’s suit with golf references playing through the whole 12-page opinion. Here’s a sampling of leads from various news sources:

ESPN: Suffice it to say that in U.S. Magistrate Judge Wallace Dixon’s opinion, ousted Duke University golfer Andrew Giuliani’s lawsuit against the school did not make par.

New York Daily News: Andrew Giuliani’s bid to sue Duke University for kicking him off its golf team ended in the rough this week.

New York Times: A federal magistrate judge with a taste for sports metaphors has found that Andrew Giuliani’s lawsuit against Duke University for letting a coach push him off the university’s golf team is “a swing and a miss.”

San Jose Mercury News: A judge treated Andrew Giuliani’s lawsuit with all the gravitas it deserved — which is to say, there’s a legal document in North Carolina that was inspired by “Caddyshack.”

The News and Observer: The son of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani tried to make a federal case against Duke University for kicking him off the golf team. But a federal magistrate says Andrew Giuliani’s case belongs in the drink.

The News & Observer wins the contest for wonkiest golf metaphor. Excerpts from the opinion, after the jump.

Here’s a post devoted to the perils of “Reply All” and idealism among first-year associates. Brought to you by the attorneys of Quinn Emanuel.

The firm just celebrated a victory in its Washington Redskins case, reports the Washington Post:

A federal appeals court yesterday handed the Washington Redskins another victory in their long-running legal dispute with Native American activists over the team’s name.

The appeals court did not address whether the name was offensive but upheld a federal judge’s ruling last year that a Native American man had waited too long to challenge six Redskins trademarks.

AmLaw Daily reports that Quinn attorney Robert Raskopf, who has been working on the case for as long it has been since the Redskins have seen a Superbowl stadium, was pretty psyched about the victory:

Raskopf was in a good mood when we spoke with him about the appellate win. He’s been on the case since it started 17 years ago. “It’s a great win for the team,” said Raskopf, who had help from Quinn partner Sanford Weisburst on the brief. “I’m so happy for the Redskins and their fans.”

Raskopf was so happy on Friday that he sent out a firm-wide victory e-mail. But not everybody was thrilled. After bouncing around the firm and racking up some responses, the victory chain made its way to our inbox via a tipster:

This is too good not to share. This was sent to all Quinn attorneys.
—-
The First Year Associate Who Shat All Over Raskopf’s Victory Email OR The First Year Associate Who Repurposed the Redskins

After the jump, see the chain that culminates in a (soon-to-be-fired?) first-year associate’s plea for idealistic litigation at Quinn.

Let me give the uninitiated a brief rundown of how the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) deals with student athletes. (If you already know this, feel free to skip ahead to the jump.) Universities make tons of money on college sports. Athletes receive a free college education. Universities make tons of money selling paraphernalia associated with popular teams and players. Athletes are not allowed to profit off of their skills while still in school. Universities = tons of money. Athletes = pretend to go to school. College sports programs = big business. Athletes = unpaid interns.

As Smilin’ Jack Ross would say: “There are the facts, and they are indisputable.”

Let me give the uninitiated a brief history of sports video games. (Again, the jump is right there.) People used to play video games using fake teams and fake players. Then professional sports leagues figured out that they could make a lot of money by licensing out their teams’ logos and jerseys. Then labor unions realized they could make a lot of money by licensing out the likenesses of their players. Then sports video games became cool. Then Michael Jordan decided he could make even more money for his specific likeness (because he was Michael Jordan and nobody else was). Then video game makers allowed people to create their own players, so everybody made their own version of Michael Jordan (mine … played for the Knicks). Now professional players get their video game money through their union and everybody is happy.

Everybody still with me? Okay, so you can see the obvious problem with college sports video games. Everybody wants real teams and real players, but the game publishers can’t use the likenesses of actual college players. That would be stealing! But since it’s perfectly legal for the NCAA to prevent kids from earning money for playing college sports, there’s not really anybody video game publishers can pay for the rights. Except the colleges and universities themselves. Who, again, make a metric ton of money off of college sports.

So, game publishers like Electronic Arts, essentially, cheat. If you pick up the copy of a college sports game, you’ll see all the players, with their accurate numbers, positions, player attributes, pretty much everything except the players’ actual names. Luckily, you can change the names of players, and every year hundreds of users sit there and change all of the names of all the players to their real life counterparts. Then people like me pay for the “updated rosters” (back in the day) or simply download them for free.

And everybody is happy.

Except, of course, the college athletes. Especially the college athletes that have only a limited chance of going pro but are very popular college athletes and want to get a little more than a diploma out of it.

Okay, enough set up, let’s get into what Nebraska QB #9 (Sam Keller) and others are doing about it.

While the NFL Draft is the premier sporting event going on this weekend, we aren’t too far away from the Kentucky Derby. That means planning for all of the events surrounding the Derby is well under way. One of the most exclusive Kentucky Derby parties is being organized by a 26-year-old law clerk.

Chris Barnstable-Brown — whom we mentioned briefly last year, back when he was still in law school — is currently clerking for Judge Boyce F. Martin (6th Cir.), by day. By night (and on lunch breaks), he organizes the Barnstable Brown Gala, which is the place to be in Louisville on race day:

While it’s known as one of Louisville’s most star-studded Derby events (People magazine once listed it among the top parties in the nation), the Barnstable Brown Gala has been going on for 20 years now, long enough for an event to get stale and vulnerable to competition. Over the years, smaller, more accessible parties have sprung up and gained enough stature to pull in a few big names of their own.

Yet there’s no sign that the gala will lose its top dog status anytime soon, in part thanks to Barnstable-Brown. He keeps his mother, gala co-hostess Tricia Barnstable Brown (Chris hyphenates his name, while Tricia does not), hip to the hottest celebrities of the moment and does what it takes to help get these stars to the party.

Mmm … landed gentry.

Running an exclusive Derby party has given Barnstable-Brown a pretty impressive list of contacts:

Over the years, Barnstable-Brown has aided with efforts to lure hip-hop stars like P. Diddy, Jermaine Dupri, Darryl “DMC” McDaniels and Ludacris. His efforts are helping, bit by bit, to bring a more up-to-date edge to the gala, which has had, at times, relied on decidedly B-list stars to populate its guest list….

A football fanatic, Barnstable-Brown, a wide receiver on the football team during his high school days at St. Xavier, takes on the job of rounding up star athletes, too. NFL superstars like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have also become regulars at the party. Last year, he helped seal the deal on getting football bad boy Terrell Owens, then with the Dallas Cowboys, to the gala.

But can he turn those names into clients? After the jump, the rich keep getting richer.