The NFL players, like football fans everywhere, will be focused on the playoffs this month and the fierce competition for a spot in the Super Bowl. Their lawyers, however, will be keeping an eye on the Supreme Court.

On Jan. 13, the pro football owners will be asking the high court to rule for the first time that the NFL is shielded from antitrust laws because, while its teams compete on the playing field, they function in business as a "single entity."

If the justices were to agree, the ramifications could be significant, not just for football but all pro sports leagues, say experts in sports law. Freed from the antitrust laws, owners could get together to restrict salaries for players and coaches and raise prices for everything from tickets to stocking caps.

"For the NFL, this case is like buying a lottery ticket. If they win, it's a huge victory, with the potential to be incredibly significant," said Gabe Feldman, who teaches sports law at Tulane University. "If not, they don't lose much."

Sports leagues have long confounded antitrust law because they involve both competition and collaboration. The National Football League is made up of 32 independently owned teams that not only compete on the field, but also compete off the field for players, coaches and the loyalty of fans.

The founder of a Southern California grocery chain who was once convicted on racketeering and other felonies is free after pleading guilty to a lesser count.

George Torres admitted Monday to one count of failing to collect payroll taxes from employees at his Numero Uno markets. He received credit for time served while awaiting prosecution and faces no further jail time.

Torres faced as much as life in prison in April after a federal jury found him guilty of 55 counts, including charges that he ordered the killing of rivals and bribed public officials.

A judge later threw out the most serious charges after prosecutors discovered evidence that may have exonerated him.

Torres' attorney says he's grateful for the court's work that led to his client's freedom.

Attorneys Alan S. Breckenridge and Jennifer A. Bierman of Gallop, Johnson & Neuman L.C. served as co-counsel in a successful legal action that will benefit client Maverick Tube Corporation by more than $6.5 million.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Maverick Tube on December 10, 2009 by overturning the district court rulings in favor of Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company. District courts in both Texas and Missouri had heard the case arising from Westchester's refusal to provide insurance coverage to Maverick Tube for claims of property damage and breach of warranty with respect to oil well piping that Maverick had sold to a customer.  

“This case has a long history, including a lawsuit filed by Westchester in Texas and a lawsuit filed by Maverick Tube here in Missouri."  Breckenridge said. “We are very pleased that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit understood our arguments, based on Missouri law, and reversed the lower courts’ rulings and remanded the case to the district court for a determination of damages, which we expect will be at least $6.5 million for Maverick Tube,” Breckenridge added. 

Breckenridge chairs the Insurance Practice Group at Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, and is past chair of the Litigation Department. Bierman is a litigator who concentrates her practice in insurance and risk management. Gallop, Johnson & Neuman served as co-counsel with Baker Botts, LLP after the lawsuits were consolidated in Houston, Texas.  

Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, L.C., a full service law firm of 80 attorneys, has provided legal services to clients in diverse industries since its founding in 1976 and is one of the largest law firms in St. Louis. The firm serves public corporations; privately-held companies; entrepreneurs and start-up enterprises; individuals and families; trustees and trust beneficiaries; charities; and non-profit entities.  

For more information, contact Lois A. LaDriere, Director of Marketing, at 314.615.6000 or see the website www.gjn.com.

Media relations contact: Jeff Dunlap at 314.993.6925.

A "Star Trek" fan isn't entitled to millions of dollars in damages for buying memorabilia that he says wasn't as out-of-this-world as it seemed, a court said.

Ted Moustakis wasn't promised he was getting a one-of-a-kind plum when he paid $11,400 for a uniform for "Star Trek: The Next Generation" character Data at a 2006 auction, an appeals court said Tuesday.

The court also said Moustakis is due at most a refund for two other purchases he says were fakes: a $6,000 poker visor supposedly worn by Data and a $6,600 table from the show's set.

Auction house Christie's and CBS Consumer Products, which oversees "Star Trek" merchandise, praised the ruling. Moustakis' lawyer didn't immediately return a telephone call.

The longtime Trekkie from Towaco, N.J., has said he was thrilled to get the items — until he showed the visor to the actor who played the android Data, Brent Spiner, at a 2007 fan convention.

Spiner told him the visor wasn't genuine, according to Moustakis' lawsuit. Moustakis said he later found the table also was inauthentic, and the uniform was one of several made for the program. Christie's had led him to believe it was unique, he said.

The state Supreme Court's Appellate Division said the auction catalog didn't represent the costume as one-of-a-kind, and even if the other items weren't as advertised, Moustakis isn't entitled to "the massive recovery he now demands" in his $7 million lawsuit.

Christie's has said it stood behind the authenticity of the auction, tied to the hit show's 40th anniversary.

Lawyers filed their petition Friday, a day after the state appeals court rejected a request to keep Alford Jones and Faye Brown behind bars. If the appeals court order stands, the inmates will go free at 5 p.m.

State courts previously sided with the inmates in determining their life sentences were actually defined in the 1970s as 80 years. The inmates say that with sentence-reduction credits, that means their terms are now complete.

The state disagrees and says the prisoners should not receive any sentence-reduction credits for good behavior.

oup of white New Haven firefighters who won a discrimination case before the U.S. Supreme Court are seeking back pay, damages and legal fees.

The high court ruled in June that New Haven officials violated white firefighters' civil rights when they threw out 2003 test results in which too few minorities did well. Fourteen firefighters who sued were promoted this month to lieutenant and captain.

Karen Torre, the firefighters' attorney, filed papers last week in U.S. District Court in New Haven arguing the firefighters are entitled to back pay with interest for long-overdue promotions, several categories of damages and attorney fees.

The firefighters were subject to "the humiliation and economic hardship of prolonged career stagnancy in a rancorous atmosphere fostered by raw racial divides," she said.

Damages will be established at trial, she said.

City officials said the Supreme Court ruling is limited to relief for 14 plaintiffs who would have been promoted if the 2003 tests had been certified.

Other firefighters who sued and were not promoted reserve their right to challenge the city's position that they were not entitled to promotions but are to damages, Torre said.

Bernard Jacques, an employment attorney in Hartford, said the claims could wind up costing New Haven $1 million or more. Cities typically have insurance to cover such losses, he said.

"It's going to be tough on the city," Jacques said. "Even a settlement is going to be a large number."

A judge on Thursday ruled against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's furlough order for thousands of California prison guards in a decision that could cost the state millions.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch sided with the 30,000-member California Correctional Peace Officers Association and ordered the state to pay prison guards back for the days they worked without pay.

The union argued that Schwarzenegger's furlough order amounted to an illegal wage cut because prison guards could not take time off fast enough due to the nature of their work.

"We are thankful for the judge's ruling regarding our peace officer members receiving compensation for the time they worked," said CCPOA spokesman Lance Corcoran.

Corcoran said it's not clear how much the decision could cost the state but estimated it to be in the millions.

Schwarzenegger's spokeswoman Rachel Arrezola said the governor plans to appeal. The administration argued the furlough plan at the Corrections Department is working because it gives workers flexibility to schedule their time off without disrupting prison operations.