USAP de-listed the JOOLA 3 paddle (in all its various forms) in 2024. JOOLA responded with a lawsuit against USAP, seeking hundreds of millions of dollars. USAP’s first action in the lawsuit was to file a motion to dismiss. All of the legal paperwork on that written argument has now been filed. Let’s examine who says what, the applicable legal standard, and what the court is likely to do.

 

 

When you read about a “motion” in a legal case it means a written legal argument. The filing party is asking the court to take some type of action. The opponent then files a written rebuttal, called a response. The party filing the original motion gets the last word, in the form of a written reply. It is then up to the court to decide the motion. The court can set a hearing, to hear oral arguments of the parties. Or the court can rule on the motion with just a reading of the written paperwork. It all depends on the particular judge, and what they prefer. At this point, all the paperwork on the USAP motion has been filed and it is now in the hands of the judge to decide what to do. Some judges rule fast, others take months.

 

 

USAP is asking the court to toss the entire lawsuit. USAP argues there is no conceivable legal basis upon which JOOLA can state a valid claim. USAP’s motion is brought under what we call Rule 12(b)(6). A 12(b)(6) motion is one of the most difficult motions in the entire legal system to win. I would estimate that it wins less than 10% of the time. In well more than 90% of cases, a 12(b)(6) motion is not even filed, as it is so difficult to win.

 

Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court is allowed to consider only the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint. The court is forbidden from considering any new facts presented by the defendant. Thus, in this case, the court can only consider what JOOLA has argued in the complaint; the court is forbidden from considering new facts or allegations put forth by USAP.

 

The court’s duty is then to look at the complaint and decide if the plaintiff can win under any possible reading of the complaint. The court does not look at whether the allegations are strong or weak or well-written; the court solely decides whether IF the plaintiff’s allegations are true, can the plaintiff win under the legal theories they put forth. So, in this case, the court will look only at JOOLA's complaint and decide, if everything JOOLA says is true, can JOOLA win? If so, the motion must be denied.

 

 

 

The USAP motion surprisingly contains new facts and allegations, presenting USAP’s side on certain issues. I say “surprising” as even a first year law student knows it is 100% improper to do so on a 12(b)(6) motion. I suspect the USAP lawyers were trying to, as we in the legal profession say, “educate the judge”. Sometimes lawyers will submit materials that they know are improper, but contain information they want the judge to know, to sway their outlook on the case. I believe USAP is trying to imply to the judge that JOOLA is playing fast and loose with the facts, even though USAP should be well aware it is improper to submit these additional facts.

 

JOOLA, not surprisingly, immediately points out in their response the impropriety of USAP submitting its own version of the facts. JOOLA properly tells the court that the only thing the court can consider is what JOOLA plead in its complaint. JOOLA then goes on to point out how their allegations fit within the legal standard for each legal claim made.

 

In its reply, USAP seeks to frame JOOLA's allegations in a way best for USAP. But a court is unlikely to buy that approach. On a 12(b)(6) motion, the court will typically determine any close calls in the plaintiff’s favor.

 

I see very little chance this motion will prevail. Even if somehow the trial judge granted it, an appellate court would very likely reverse such a ruling. Indeed, the judge may chastise USAP for improperly trying to submit facts that were not part of the JOOLA complaint. JOOLA did have, among its various legal theories, a claim for fraud. Civil fraud is difficult to prove and very technical. The court might dismiss the fraud claim, or tell JOOLA it must re-file the fraud claim with more specific allegations. However, I see no realistic chance of a judge throwing out the majority of the JOOLA claims. The key arguments about breach of contract and misrepresentation are highly likely to remain.

 

 

These type of motions are often filed, not to win, but to delay (or, as cynics claim, to give the lawyers a chance to bill more hours). Assuming USAP’s motion is denied, the court should set a schedule for discovery. Discovery is where the parties exchange information and documents and depositions (statements made under oath) can be taken. If I am JOOLA, I am anxious to get discovery going. I expect there are internal emails at USAP that have information helpful to JOOLA. Further, if I am JOOLA, I want to depose USAP personnel about paddle certification issues. There are many questions that can be asked of USAP that will be very tough for USAP to answer. For example, are the paddles as marketed by JOOLA different from the paddles previously approved and, if so, in what way? Did USAP change its paddle standards and tests during 2024 and, if so, when, why and how?

 

Of course, discovery goes both ways, so JOOLA will also have to turn over documents and allow personnel to be deposed. But, the real issues in this suit concern the conduct of USAP. The parties pretty much agree on what JOOLA did and when they did it. The central disputes concern USAP’s conduct. Thus, it appears at this early stage that JOOLA has more to gain in the discovery process than does USAP. That may well explain why USAP’s lawyers filed a motion that appears more about delay than substantive law. 

 

As always, lawsuits are unpredictable, and judges can do unusual things. This remains a lawsuit with very high stakes, for both sides. An early settlement continues to be the right path, for both sides. Why that has not occurred is unknown. In the meantime, we all have to wait and see.

 

Follow me on Twitter/X @pickleball_jim.