10/16/2017 1:51:20 PM 17CV45539 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

Transcription

1 10/16/2017 1:51:20 PM 17CV IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH CRISSHA WN CLARK, v. Plaintiff, UNIVERSITY OF OREGON; DANA ALTMAN; JOSH JAMIESON; KEVIN MCKENNA; MIKE MENNENGA; TONY STUBBLEFIELD; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant. Case No Negligence ORS (1 )( c) [$50,000 or more and less than $1,000,000] NOT SUBJECT TO MANDATORY ARBITRATION 16 For his complaint, and each cause of action alleged herein, plaintiff Crisshawn Clark 17 alleges: INTRODUCTION This is a personal injury action by Crisshawn Clark, an individual and current 21 resident of Multnomah County, Oregon, against (a) defendant University of Oregon (the "U 22 of O"), a public institution of higher learning of the State of Oregon, (b) U of O's Head 23 Men's Basketball Coach, defendant Dana Altman, (c) U of O's Men's Basketball Director of 24 Operations, Josh Jamieson, (d) U of O's Men's Basketball Assistant Coach, defendant Kevin 25 McKenna, (e) U of O's Men's Basketball Assistant Coach, defendant Mike Mennenga, and 26 (f) U of O's Men's Basketball Assistant Coach, defendant Tony Stubblefield U of 0 is located, inter alia, in the City of Eugene, Oregon, but regularly 28 conducts business in Multnomah County in the State of Oregon. - 1-

2 1 3. Each of defendants Jamieson, McKenna, Mennenga and Stubblefield are 2 individuals who, at all times alleged in this Complaint, are or were coaches and/or 3 administrators, and agents, for the Men's Basketball Program of the U of 0, working under 4 the supervision and direction of the Head Men's Basketball Coach, defendant Dana Altman The true names and capacities of each of the defendants sued herein as a DOE 6 are unknown to plaintiff and will be substituted in by plaintiff when the same are ascertained. 7 Plaintiff believes each such fictitiously named defendant is responsible in some way for the 8 injuries and damages to plaintiff as alleged herein, that each such defendant was an agent for 9 some other defendant named herein and/or was, at all times mentioned herein, acting in the 10 course and scope of his, her or its employment by the U of On or about October 13, 20, Mr. Clark was offered a full athletic 12 scholarship to attend school at and play basketball for U of Subsequently, on October, 20, Mr. Clark met with defendant McKenna, who had come to Redwood City, California, to watch Mr. Clark practice with Mr. Clark's junior college team at Canada College, where Mr. Clark was a sophomore student-athlete. 16 Mr. Clark, during the 20-' basketball season for Canada College, had been honored by 17 being named the Northern California Junior College Freshman of the Year for the 20-' season. 7. Defendant McKenna arranged for Mr. Clark to take an official paid recruiting 20 visit to the University of Oregon and Mr. Clark arrived in Eugene, Oregon, on Thursday 21 night, October, On Friday, October 16, 20, after taking a campus tour, Mr. Clark shot 23 baskets with a former player on U of O's main basketball court. While shooting baskets, 24 defendant McKenna told Mr. Clark that tomorrow [Saturday], he "can get one of our guys to 25 put you through a workout." Mr. McKenna also told Mr. Clark he could get Mr. Clark some 26 gear in which to work out At dinner on Friday, October 16, 20, defendant Mennenga asked Mr. Clark 28 whether he had ever had any surgeries. Mr. Clark replied that he had had surgery on both of -2-

3 1 his knees. Mr. Mennenga asked Mr. Clark what he had had done and Mr. Clark told him that 2 he had them scoped after the season On the drive back to Mr. Clark's hotel following dinner on October 16, 20, 4 while discussing the schedule for the following day, Mr. Mennenga told Mr. Clark that Mr. 5 McKenna had told him that he, Mr. Clark, was supposed to work out Mr. Mennenga picked up Mr. Clark at the hotel around 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, 7 October 17, 20 and after grabbing a quick bite to eat, they headed to the basketball arena to 8 watch the U of O's Men's Basketball Team practice After practice ended, Mr. Mennenga first asked Mr. Clark whether he wanted 10 to eat again, to which Mr. Clark replied, "no." Mr. Mennenga then said to Mr. Clark, "[s]o, 11 are you ready to work out then?" On the way to the locker room to change into workout clothes, Mr. Clark 13 chatted with defendant Altman, who asked him if he was going to eat with the team. Mr. Clark told Mr. Altman, "[n]o, I am about to workout with Coach Mennenga.". Mr. Clark's workout with Mr. Mennenga began late morning on Saturday, 16 October 17, 20. The first drill Mr. Mennenga had Mr. Clark do consisted of Mr. Clark 17 working off of a screen at the elbow of the key. This drill lasted only about five minutes, during which defendants Stubblefield and Jamieson arrived and sat on the sidelines.. The second drill Mr. Mennenga had Mr. Clark do consisted of Mr. Clark 20 driving to the basket and finishing at the rim. This drill only lasted a few minutes and was 21 without incident The third drill Mr. Mennenga put Mr. Clark through was similar to the second 23 except that this time, Mr. Mennenga instructed Mr. Clark to drive to the basket "through 24 contact." To simulate and actually provide contact, Mr. Mennenga started planting himself 25 in Mr. Clark's path to the basket to force a collision before Mr. Clark laid the basketball in 26 the basket. After two repetitions of that drill and Mr. Clark absorbing the contact levied by 27 Mr. Mennenga, Mr. Mennenga insisted that Mr. Clark do it again. On Mr. Clark's third 28 attempt, he changed direction to avoid contact but wound up missing the shot. Mr. -3-

4 1 Mennenga insisted the drill could not end on a missed shot. So, Mr. Clark grabbed the ball 2 and shot from the outside. Mr. Mennenga told Mr. Clark that jump shots are not part of the 3 drill and that he had to drive to the basket again Mr. Clark began his next and last drive to the basket, picked up his dribble to 5 start his move, at which point Mr. Mennenga unexpectedly gave him a hard chest bump 6 which threw Mr. Clark off his stride. Mr. Clark felt a snap in his left knee and knew 7 immediately that he had torn his left anterior cruciate ligament ("ACL"); he had previously, 8 in April 20, undergone surgery for a partial ACL tear of the left knee. He fell to the 9 ground in pain and laid there for a few moments in disbelief. 10. When Mr. Clark tried to get up to walk, he noticed that Mr. Stubblefield and 11 Mr. Jamieson were quickly exiting the gym. 12. Mr. Clark was helped to the training room, where he was examined by a team 13 trainer, who described the injury as serious, and where he received ice to help alleviate the swelling, ibuprofen and a knee sleeve. 20. On the car ride back to Mr. Clark's hotel, Mr. Mennenga expressed remorse to 16 Mr. Clark for what had happened. Later that night, Mr. McKenna stopped by with a 17 sandwich for Mr. Clark and to see how Mr. Clark was doing. As he was leaving, Mr. McKenna assured Mr. Clark that the U of 0 would "take care of it" and that he felt badly. 21. Mr. Clark returned to his home in San Carlos, California on Sunday, October 20, 20. Mr. Clark underwent an MRI on October 21, 20, which MRI confirmed, inter 21 alia, a complete tear of the ACL in his left knee On October 31, 20, Mr. Clark underwent surgical reconstruction of his left 23 anterior cruciate ligament, missed his sophomore 20-'16 basketball season at Canada 24 College, spent much of his sophomore year rehabilitating his left knee, and then enrolled at 25 the University of Pittsburgh on a full athletic scholarship, which Mr. Clark had accepted and 26 the University of Pittsburgh honored following his October 17, 20 left knee injury On April 13, 2016, an Oregon Standard Tort Claim Form executed by Mr. 28 Clark (the "Notice of Claim") was sent via Federal Express and to defendant U of O's -4-

5 1 (a) Vice President and General Counsel, Kevin Reed, Esq., (b) Athletic Director, Mr. Rob 2 Mullens, (c) Senior Associate Athletic Director - Chief Compliance Officer, Ms. Jody Sykes, 3 and (d) Associate Risk Manager, Ms. Flo Hoskinson. A true and correct copy of the Notice 4 of Claim is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Mr. Clark has never received a response to the 5 Notice of Claim The National Collegiate Athletic Association (the :NCAA"), of which the U 7 of 0 is a member institution whose Division I Men's Basketball Program headed by Mr. 8 Altman is governed by its rules and bylaws, allows on-campus evaluations of prospective 9 student-athletes only under certain conditions. In particular, NCAA Division I Bylaw restricts on campus evaluations (i.e., participation in workouts and/or scrimmages) 11 of junior college (two year college) prospective student-athletes to only after the conclusion 12 of the prospective student-athlete's season and he or she has exhausted his or her two-year 13 college eligibility in basketball. This Bylaw reads, in pertinent part, as follows: (b) For a two-year college prospective student-athlete, the evaluation may be conducted only after the conclusion of the prospective student-athlete's season and he or she has exhausted his or her two-year college eligibility in basketball; (e) The on-campus evaluation shall be conducted not later than the opening day of classes of the institution's fall term U of 0 violated the aforementioned NCAA Bylaw by putting Mr. Clark 26 through an evaluative workout prior to the exhaustion of his two-year eligibility in basketball 27 (i.e., after he commenced his sophomore academic year at Canada College and prior to his 28 Division I Bylaw On-Campus Evaluations Basketball. In basketball, an institution may conduct an evaluation of a prospective student-athlete on its campus or at a site at which it normally conducts practice or competition, under the following conditions: In basketball, an institution may conduct an evaluation of a prospective student-athlete on its campus or at a site at which it normally conducts practice or competition, under the following conditions: -5-

6 sophomore basketball season there), as well as after U of O's opening day of classes for its fall term. 26. All or part of Mr. Clark's medical and rehabilitation expenses related to the October 17, 20 left knee injury were paid by or on behalf of the U of O; however, Mr. Clark suffered significant other damages in connection with the October 17, 20 left knee injury for which he is entitled to and should receive compensation. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Negligence) 27. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 26 as if fully set forth herein. 28. Each of the defendants named herein was acting within the course and scope of their respective employment by the U of 0. Each of the individual defendants named herein other than Mr. Altman was acting with the specific or tacit approval of the Head Coach, Mr. Altman. Each of the individual defendants named herein either knew or should have known of NCAA Division I Bylaw which prohibited a workout or evaluation of Mr. Clark while he was at U of 0 for an official recruiting visit. 29. Each of the defendants named herein owed a duty to Mr. Clark to refrain from causing him harm or subjecting him to a dangerous situation which could cause him harm. 30. Defendants, and each of them, breached the aforementioned duty by requesting and/or approving Mr. Clark's participation in an on-campus evaluation or workout during his official recruiting visit to the U of 0 campus, as well as by putting him through an evaluation which is prohibited by NCAA Division I Bylaw Defendants, and each of them, further breached their duty of care to Mr. Clark by allowing him to participate in a dangerous drill in which defendant Mennenga initiated contact to Mr. Clark while Mr. Clark was making a basketball move at significant speed, causing him to be knocked off balance and/or off his chosen path to the basket. 32. Such contact caused Mr. Clark to injure his left knee as herein alleged. 33. Such injury caused and will cause significant damages to Mr. Clark in an amount to be proven at trial. Such damages include, but are not limited to, compensatory -6-

7 1 damages for pain and suffering and damages for the loss of future income, all in an amount 2 reasonably estimated to be greater than $100,000.00, according to proof at trial. 3 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows: For compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial; For loss of future income in an amount to be proved at trial; For prejudgment interest at the legal rate; For costs of suit incurred herein; and For such other and further relief as the court or jury deems just and proper. 10 DATED: October~ Crisshawn Clark In Pro Se 5000 N. Willamette Boulevard Tyson Hall 213 Portland, OR Phone: Crisshawn. Clark94@gmail.com