For second time, U.S. judge dismisses lawsuit seeking end of major junior hockey drafts

A U.S. District Court judge in Washington state has dismissed a class-action lawsuit that attempted to end the entry draft system in major junior hockey, citing jurisdictional issues with the case.

“Given that the majority of the conduct at issue occurred in Canada, asserting jurisdiction for a small group and allowing the small group to potentially upend the conduct of business that mostly occurs in another country would be like the tail wagging the dog,” Judge Tana Lin wrote in a May 23 decision.

Lin noted that nine of 60 Canadian Hockey League teams are based in the U.S.

“The court believes the United States has a public policy interest in the treatment of Major Junior hockey players recruited from and playing in the United States,” Lin wrote. “But under this factor, the inquiry is whether extending comity to foreign proceedings would be contrary to the policies of the United States… Here, deferring to Canadian antitrust law and the jurisdiction of Canadian courts in the case of harm suffered by players in Canada does not violate U.S. policy.”

Lin’s decision came after a judge in New York state also dismissed a similar lawsuit in November on similar grounds.

The ruling also came after the plaintiffs had asked for a preliminary injunction to eliminate the annual player drafts in the Western Hockey League, Ontario Hockey League, and Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League, or to at least force the leagues to sign collective bargaining agreements with their players.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington sought to improve rights and compensation for players in the CHL. The plaintiffs wanted major junior hockey to more closely resemble NCAA hockey, where players can choose which school to play for, and where players, if they so choose, can transfer to a different school without the permission of the school they are leaving.

Two former Western Hockey League players, Isaiah DiLaura and Tanner Gould, were involved in the case as plaintiffs and argued that prospective players should have the right to decide the teams they play for.

While the plaintiffs argued that CHL teams routinely attend development camps in the United States and that they teams scout, draft, and sign players from the U.S., the CHL successfully countered that the court has no jurisdiction because there are no major junior teams based in New York.