Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tinsley v. IAM Sports & Entertainment Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

June 26, 2018

JAMAAL L. TINSLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
IAM SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Defendants.

          ENTRY ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

          Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge

         This 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Facts Asserted in Tinsley's Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff 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.

         Tinsley 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.

         Tinsley 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 the Defendants.

         B. Facts Relating to the Instant Motion

         In 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.

         Counsel 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.