Robert Griffin III Wins Summary Judgment Against NFL Agent Over $650,000 In Marketing Fees

Dogra had argued that his claim against Griffin had not accrued until 2018, but Clark was not convinced by his line of reasoning.

Ben Dogra was, for many years, known as one of the most successful sports agents to represent National Football League players. Years ago, Dogra was brought in to Creative Artists Agency (CAA) with another super agent, Tom Condon, to turn the talent agency into a sports power. It was mission accomplished for CAA; Condon and Dogra were often named, on an annual basis, as the Contract Advisors of record for many top NFL Draft picks.

However, in 2014, CAA terminated its employment agreement with Dogra and claimed that the termination was for cause. A dispute surrounding whether the termination was truly for cause, and the damages Dogra claimed to be owed would be played out in court and arbitration for many years. Dogra’s demand included a claim of entitlement to marketing commissions from off-field deals procured for NFL quarterback Robert Griffin III. CAA assigned to Dogra its contractual rights to those commissions after an arbitrator ruled that Dogra was entitled to the monies.

That is the backdrop to the litigation initiated by Dogra against Griffin on March 22, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Dogra sued Griffin with a stated demand of $658,000 for failure to make payment of the marketing commissions from 2014, 2015, and 2016. The court was made aware of actual invoices from 2014 ($376,827.98) and 2015 ($221,275.69), but the record contained no invoice for 2016. Ultimately, the lack of a physical invoice for 2016 played no role in the court’s final ruling.

On September 9, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark held that Dogra is entitled to no marketing commissions from any of the three years. The order granted Griffin’s motion for summary judgment.

Clark said that Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §339.1 is controlling, which is the California statute of limitations that says an action upon contract not founded upon an instrument of writing must be brought within two years. Dogra’s claim against Griffin was based on an assignment of rights from CAA, and CAA’s rights derived from an oral marketing contract with Griffin.

Dogra had argued that his claim against Griffin had not accrued until 2018, but Clark was not convinced by his line of reasoning. The 2014 invoice stated that payment was due by Griffin on January 15, 2015, and the 2015 invoice, dated June 1, 2015, said that payment was due upon receipt. Furthermore, Dogra’s own testimony given in the case was very damning for his cause.

Clark noted that when Dogra was asked, under oath, when fees under the oral contract were payable, he testified that the “fees in 2014 are payable in 2014 … . The fees in 2015 are paid in 2015. And the fees in 2016 are paid in 2016.” California precedent says that a cause of action for breach of contract generally accrues at the time of breach regardless of whether any substantial damage is apparent or ascertainable.

Sponsored

Dogra did his best to argue that CAA did not discover the cause of action for breach of contract until 2018 because CAA was never informed until then that Griffin intended not to pay. He even provided the court with an affidavit from CAA Sports’ Chief Financial Officer, Frank Moore, to that effect. Again, Clark was not persuaded.

“The Court finds the discovery rule has no bearing on this case because CAA Sports knew, or should have known, at all relevant times that Griffin had not paid,” Clark wrote in his order. “CAA Sports could have sued Griffin for failure to pay the fees at the time they came due.” Dogra’s own words were once again used against him. He had previously testified that, “CAA Sports didn’t want to sue him. They could have.”

Dogra waited five years after the 2014 invoice was due, roughly four years after the 2015 invoice was due and in excess of two years from the due date of 2016 fees. While Dogra may have fought for years against CAA to, in part, receive what he thought to be a valuable assignment on marketing fees owed by Griffin, the assignment is now worth nothing, pending any appeal that Dogra may choose to bring on the matter.


Darren Heitner is the founder of Heitner Legal. He is the author of How to Play the Game: What Every Sports Attorney Needs to Know, published by the American Bar Association, and is an adjunct professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. You can reach him by email at heitner@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter at @DarrenHeitner.

Sponsored