United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
JAMAAL L. TINSLEY, Plaintiff,
IAM SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Defendants.
ENTRY ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
William T. Lawrence, Judge
cause is before the Court on the Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement filed by Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
Erika Blume, and William Kennedy (hereinafter referred to
collectively as the “Chase Defendants”) (Dkt. No.
28). The motion is fully briefed, and the Court, being duly
advised, GRANTS the motion for the reasons
set forth below.
Facts Asserted in Tinsley's Amended
Jamaal Tinsley is a professional basketball player who played
in the NBA for eleven seasons. He played for the Indiana
Pacers from July 2001 to July 2009 and resided in Carmel,
Indiana during that time.
alleges the following in his Amended Complaint. Throughout
his NBA career, Tinsley employed Defendants IAM Sports and
Entertainment, Inc., and Raymond Brothers (collectively
referred to as “the Brothers Defendants”) as his
agent and attorney. During his time with the Pacers, Tinsley
engaged Bank One (now Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
and hereinafter referred to as “Chase”) and
Defendants William Kennedy and Erika Blume (collectively with
Chase referred to as the “Chase Defendants”) as
wealth and asset managers. On the advice of the Chase
Defendants, money paid to Tinsley by his employers was
directly deposited into Chase, which would then move portions
of those funds into Tinsley's trust account. Chase also
would pay the Brothers Defendants and others (including
Defendants Jennifer Burr and Elite Services) (collectively
referred to as “Burr”). Tinsley also would
receive an “allowance” from these funds.
alleges that the Defendants breached their contracts with and
fiduciary duties to Tinsley in various ways. In his
sixteen-count Amended Complaint, he asserts claims against
the Chase Defendants and the Brothers Defendants for breach
of contract and breach of fiduciary duty; claims for
malpractice and “attorney misconduct” against the
Brothers Defendants; RICO, unjust enrichment, conversion,
deception, constructive fraud, and actual fraud claims
against all of the Defendants; and a claim under the Indiana
Crime Victims Act, Ind. Code § 34-24-3-1, against all of
Facts Relating to the Instant Motion
2004, Tinsley executed an Assignment of Life Insurance Policy
as Collateral form (the “Assignment”) which
assigned to Chase (then Bank One) a life insurance policy on
his life in the amount of $650, 000 that had been issued by
Pacific Life Insurance Company (“Pacific Life”).
The Assignment stated that it was made “and the Policy
is to be held as collateral security for any and all present
and future liabilities of [Tinsley], or any of them, to
[Chase].” Dkt. No. 28-2 ¶ D.
for the Chase Defendants (hereinafter referred to as
“Defense Counsel”) entered their appearance in
this case on December 18, 2017. On December 28, 2017, at 1:37
p.m., Plaintiff's counsel sent an e-mail to Defense
Counsel which read, in relevant part:
[I]n the interests of time and not allowing our belief with
regard to the, at best, questionable activities in which your
clients have engaged as to Mr. Tinsley's affairs from the
time they were entrusted with his wealth until the time they
had him sign that nonsensical release which likely is not
enforceable given the claims against your clients, I have
been instructed by Mr. Tinsley to dismiss his claims as to
your clients, with prejudice, should your client
execute the Pacific Funds waiver in the next 48 hours.
Please advise at your earliest convenience whether this offer
of compromise is workable.
Ironically, as you well know, your clients have no right,
title, or interest to Mr. Tinsley's life insurance
proceeds; so, by executing the waiver and receiving a full
release from this litigation, Mr. Tinsley really gains
nothing but acceleration on funds to which he was otherwise
long ago entitled. I say this because the timing of our
receipt of this waiver ...