---

5th Annual Removal and Remand Bootcamp CLE
Thursday, May 25, 2023
[One Hour of CLE]

The Complex Litigation, Solo & Small Firm, and Business Litigation Committees present their annual update on recent cases impacting federal jurisdiction, removal, and remand.  The panel will present a quick refresher on some technical bases for removal and remand and then dive into more complex issues including pre-service (snap) removal, federal question removal, federal officer removal, CAFA, improper joinder, amount-in-controversy issues, timeliness considerations, and other procedural hurdles. Please join us for this educational discussion!

Speakers: Thomas M. Flanagan, Flanagan Partners, LLP, Complex Litigation Committee Chair
Cayce C. Peterson, JJC Law, LLC, Solo and Small Firms Committee Chair
Chloé M. Chetta, Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver, LLC

Date: Thursday, May 25, 2023

Time: 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.

CLE: 1 hour of CLE

Location: NOBA Boardroom, 650 Poydras Street, Ste. 1505, NOLA 70130

Cost: NOBA Member: $36.05 (in person/includes lunch)
Non-Member: $56.65 (in person/includes lunch)

Registration:

1. Click Here to Register Online!
2. Email Briana Nelms
3. Contact NOBA at (504) 525-7453

Please note our cancellation policy:
Payment is expected before the start of programs in order to attend. Cancellations must be received in writing two days in advance in order to receive a refund. No shows are not eligible for refunds and will be charged for the program, plus an administrative billing fee.

---

Antitrust and the NCAA: Should College Athletes Be Paid to Play? CLE Survey Results

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 the NOBA Business Litigation Committee hosted a CLE program titled Antitrust and the NCAA: Should College Athletes Be Paid to Play?, with NOBA Past President Jay Gulotta and Fritz Metzinger of Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann, L.L.C. serving as speakers. As part of the presentation, attendees and others were asked to take a survey gauging their thoughts on the debate over player compensation in college sports. 

The results to the survey can be found here. In response to the first question - Is it your opinion that college athletes should be paid more than the "cost of attendance" at their colleges?—37.29 percent of respondents said players should receive more money from both the schools they play for and third party sources for their names, images, and likenesses, such as sponsorships and video games; 38.98 percent of respondents said players should receive more money but only from third-party sources, and the remaining 23.73 percent said athletes should not be paid more. These results are illuminating in at least two ways. While respondents strongly support players' right to make more than the "cost of attendance" to which they are currently limited (76.27-23.73 percent), those who do support an easing of compensation restrictions are torn on whether the schools themselves should be allowed to pay athletes significantly more than a normal scholarship amount. 

Respondents were relatively split on the remaining issues. Slightly more people said they would be more likely to watch collegiate sports if restrictions on compensation were eliminated (55.77-44.23 percent). A slim majority of respondents believed that the elimination of compensation restrictions would make them more likely to satisfy minimum academic requirements (51.72-48.28). And, finally, a slight majority responded that, if restrictions are lifted, players should earn what they are worth, as opposed to the money being distributed "equally" among the players (53.33-46.67 percent). 

The results highlight the different ways in which people perceive the "pay for play" debate, including the extent to which restrictions should be lifted and the potential consequences should student-athletes begin to earn more than the cost of attendance.

Thank you to all who attended and participated in the survey!

---

Blog Posts: 

April 2023: Louisiana's Truth in Labeling of Food Products Act Update