On May 30, 2025, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania handed down a significant decision in the case of Todd France v. Jason Bernstein, a dispute that has captured the attention of the sports agent community.
The saga began in late 2016 when NFL wide receiver Kenny Golladay signed a standard representation agreement (SRA) and an endorsement and marketing agreement with Jason Bernstein and his firm, Clarity Sports. These contracts, filed with the NFLPA as required, made Bernstein and Clarity Sports Golladay’s exclusive representatives. However, on January 29, 2019, Golladay terminated both agreements, a move that stunned Bernstein, especially after learning just days earlier of an autograph-signing event in Chicago that he had no role in arranging. As the court noted, “Bernstein became aware of the event, but only because he saw a Facebook post from one of the three [Memorabilia Defendants] promoting it.” Suspicion soon pointed to Todd France and CAA Sports, with Golladay signing with France immediately after the termination.
Bernstein filed a grievance against France under the NFLPA Regulations Governing Contract Advisors, alleging France initiated contact with Golladay and orchestrated the signing event to lure him away. An initial arbitration in November and December 2019, conducted by Arbitrator Roger P. Kaplan, favored France, but this outcome was overturned by the Third Circuit in 2022. The appeals court found the award was “procured by fraud,” stating, “It turns out that France did indeed have crucial evidence that should have been available to Bernstein ….” Discovery in a parallel case, Clarity Sports Int’l LLC v. Redland Sports, revealed damning evidence: “CAA Sports produced an email from Silver to France attaching a contract for the event for Golladay’s signature, plus another email from France to Golladay attaching the same contract and asking him to sign and return it.”
A second arbitration followed in 2023, with Bernstein prevailing. On December 28, 2023, the arbitrator issued an award against France, ordering $135,846.47 in costs, $225,000 in compensatory damages, and $450,000 in punitive damages, totaling $810,846.47. The arbitrator found France’s actions “willful and flagrant,” in “bad faith,” and “outside the bounds of lawful behavior,” justifying the punitive award at twice the compensatory amount. France’s request for attorney’s fees was denied.
France fought back, filing a complaint and petition on March 21, 2024, in the Eastern District of Virginia to vacate or modify the award. He alleged arbitrator misconduct under § 10(a)(3) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) for refusing pertinent evidence, excess of authority under § 10(a)(4), violations of the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act (VUAA), and issues under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and common law. After the case was transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the court addressed these claims.
The court first tackled Bernstein’s motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding France’s LMRA claims. Bernstein argued the LMRA, which governs contracts between employers and labor organizations, didn’t apply, as neither he nor France were signatories to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The court agreed, noting, “France is conflating the NFLPA Regulations Governing Contract Advisors with the actual collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA.” This dismissed the LMRA claims, highlighting that disputes between agents don’t fall under this statute.
Next, the court evaluated France’s challenge to the arbitrator’s use of collateral estoppel. France argued the arbitrator unfairly relied on the Third Circuit’s fraud finding, denying him a chance to present new evidence. However, the court upheld the arbitrator’s discretion, citing precedent: “Arbitration awards are generally presumed valid, review is ‘extremely deferential,’ and vacatur is appropriate only in ‘exceedingly narrow’ circumstances.” The arbitrator had allowed briefing and considered prior hearings, the Third Circuit’s ruling, and submitted evidence, making the process fair.
Finally, France contested the $450,000 punitive damages award, claiming the arbitrator exceeded his authority under FAA § 10(a)(4). He pointed to a prior arbitration (Wasielewski et al. v. Simms & Recchion, NFLPA 18-CA-3) where the same arbitrator said the Regulations “make no provision for punitive damages.” The court rejected this, noting the NFLPA Regulations are silent on punitive damages, and the Third Circuit has no presumption against them. The arbitrator’s decision wasn’t irrational, as he allowed briefing, held hearings, and addressed the unique fraud in this case.
For sports agents, this case is a wake-up call. Interference with a rival’s client can lead to severe consequences—here, over $800,000 in total liability. The court’s deference to arbitration underscores the binding nature of NFLPA processes. Transparency and strict compliance with Regulations are critical to avoid “willful and flagrant” violations that trigger punitive damages. As the court concluded, France’s motions to vacate and for limited discovery were denied, and the award stands.
