NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued March 29, 2010
Questions Certified October 18, 2010
Decided August 25, 2011
Before
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
JOHN W. DARRAH, District Judge*
No. 09‐3667
TOM GEORGE, CHRIS VITRON, LORI CHAPKO Appeal from the United States
and EDWARD SNEAD, on behalf of District Court for the Southern
themselves and all others similarly District of Indiana, Indianapolis
situated, Division.
Plaintiffs‐Appellants,
No. 08‐cv‐1684
v.
William T. Lawrence, Judge.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant‐Appellee.
O R D E R
This case comes to us on remand from the Indiana Supreme Court. Plaintiffs
brought a proposed nationwide class action against the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (“NCAA”) and Ticketmaster, alleging that both Defendants operated
illegal lotteries to sell and distribute tickets for certain Division I championship
tournaments. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint
*
Honorable John W. Darrah, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
No. 09‐3667 Page 2
with prejudice, and Plaintiffs appealed.
This Court originally reversed the judgment of the district court, see George v.
Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 613 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. July 16, 2010), but later vacated
that decision and certified three questions to the Indiana Supreme Court:
1. Do the plaintiffs’ allegations about the NCAA’s method for
allocating scarce tickets to championship tournaments describe a
lottery that would be unlawful under Indiana law?
2. If the plaintiffs’ allegations describe an unlawful lottery, would the
NCAA’s method for allocating tickets fall within the Ind. Code
§ 35‐45‐5‐1(d) exception for “bona fide business transactions that
are valid under the law of contracts”?
3. If the plaintiffs’ allegations describe an unlawful lottery, do
plaintiffs’ allegations show that their claims are subject to an in pari
delicto defense as described in Lesher v. Baltimore Football Club, 495
N.E.2d 785, 790 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986), and Swain v. Bussell, 10
Ind. 438, 442 (1858)?
George v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 623 F.3d 1135, 1137‐38 (7th Cir. Oct. 18, 2010).
On April 21, 2011, the Indiana Supreme Court responded to our certified
questions and held that the NCAA’s ticket‐distribution process, as alleged by
Plaintiffs, was not an illegal lottery under Indiana law and, therefore, declined to
reach the remaining questions presented. See George v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,
945 N.E.2d 150 (Ind. Apr. 21, 2011). In light of the Indiana Supreme Court’s express
determination that the scheme alleged by Plaintiffs does not constitute an illegal
lottery under the laws of Indiana, we now AFFIRM the judgment of the district
court.