Judge denies Jeremy Mayfield request to reverse decision that dismissed his claims against NASCAR
U.S. District Court Judge Graham Mullen, who in May dismissed Jeremy Mayfield’s claims against NASCAR over a May 2009 drug test that NASCAR said was positive for methamphetamines, issued a ruling Thursday denying a request from Mayfield to vacate the decision.
Mullen had ruled in May that Mayfield had waived most of his rights to sue NASCAR when he signed the NASCAR-driver agreement and NASCAR-owner agreement. He also indicated that Mayfield did not have enough evidence to support his claims.
Mayfield’s legal team, headed by celebrity attorney Mark Geragos, filed a four-page motion in June asking Mullen to reconsider. Such motions are not uncommon, especially when an appeal is planned.
The motion claimed that Mullen erred by allowing NASCAR to pursue its counterclaim against Mayfield (for breach of contract by competing while violating the substance-abuse policy) but not allowing Mayfield to sue NASCAR because of the waiver signed as part of the driver-NASCAR agreement. The motion also said that Mullen did not apply applicable Florida law and that Mayfield should have been given the opportunity to amend his complaint to bring claims of wrongful interference with contractual or business relations.
“Plaintiffs [Mayfield] have repeatedly asserted that they can and will bring viable claims of tortious interference with contractual or business relations, but have yet to state a single example as to how they will do this or submit a proposed amended complaint,” the judge wrote in his decision released Thursday. “Plaintiffs maintain in their motion they are ‘confident’ that they can bring valid claims for tortious interference unrelated to NASCAR’s substance abuse policy, yet in their next sentence Plaintiffs state that these ‘causes of action must involve implementation of the policy.’
“The logical inconsistencies in Plaintiffs’ arguments are further compounded by the fact that they propose no specific amendments to their prior claims and have not shown how any amended complaint would remedy the many other deficiencies that caused the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims. As Plaintiffs have failed to hint at any additional allegations upon which relief could be granted, granting Plaintiffs’ leave to amend will be an exercise in futility.”
A trial on NASCAR’s counterclaim that Mayfield breached his NASCAR-driver agreement by competing while violating the substance-abuse policy is scheduled to begin Sept. 13, although NASCAR has asked that the trial be delayed. According to court documents filed by NASCAR, Mayfield would consent to a delay in the trial if he would be allowed to appeal immediately the decision to dismiss his claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals. NASCAR won’t consent to that provision.
Mayfield, who was indefinitely suspended from NASCAR on May 9, 2009, had sued NASCAR for breach of contract, discrimination and defamation in an attempt to get back on the track and for financial damages. He won an injunction to participate in NASCAR in July 2009 but never got back on track.
The injunction was later stayed, pending appeal, and Mayfield – the only driver suspended since NASCAR implemented random drug testing in 2009 – eventually asked for the court to drop the injunction so the case could proceed more quickly toward trial. The judge then surprisingly dismissed Mayfield’s claims in May.
The 41-year-old Mayfield, who has 433 career starts with five Cup victories and two Chase appearances, qualified for five of the first 11 races of the 2009 season before being suspended. He has denied using methamphetamines and contended the drug-test findings that prompted his suspension resulted from a combination of prescription drug Adderall, which is used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and over-the-counter Claritin-D allergy medicine. He also argued that NASCAR must follow guidelines that regulate federal agencies. NASCAR denied that Aegis Sciences Corp., which conducts the NASCAR drug-testing program, must follow those regulations, and Mullen agreed in his ruling in May.
