Williams Hicks, et al v. PGA Tour, Inc.

Track this case

Case overview

Case Number:

16-15370

Court:

Appellate - 9th Circuit

Nature of Suit:

3410 Antitrust

  1. July 27, 2018

    9th Circ. Upholds PGA Tour Win In Caddy Bib-Ads Suit

    The Ninth Circuit ruled Friday that a proposed class of golf caddies consented to wearing promotional bibs while working PGA Tour Inc. events by signing a required contract, upholding a lower court's decision to toss their antitrust allegations of being exploited as "walking advertisements."

  2. October 12, 2017

    Caddies Ask 9th Circ. For Mulligan In PGA Tour Bib-Ads Suit

    Golf caddies urged the Ninth Circuit at a hearing Thursday to revive their proposed antitrust class action accusing PGA Tour Inc. of exploiting them as "walking advertisements," saying the lower court erred by using evidence outside their complaint to interpret their contracts without giving them a fair shot at responding.

  3. August 01, 2016

    PGA Tour Caddies Keep Pushing Appeal In 9th Circ.

    Golf caddies in a proposed antitrust class action accusing PGA Tour Inc. of using them as "walking billboards" for sponsors again urged the Ninth Circuit on Friday to reverse their suit's dismissal, saying the lower court relied on disputed evidence that they should have been allowed to refute.

  4. July 18, 2016

    PGA Tour Pushes Back Against Caddies' Bib Class Appeal

    PGA Tour Inc. told the Ninth Circuit on Friday that a California federal court got it right in February when it tossed a suit by a proposed class of caddies claiming the PGA abuses its power by forcing them to wear bibs covering their chests, saying the court acted within its power when it sought evidence not included or appended to the complaint.

  5. June 16, 2016

    PGA Tour Caddies Appeal Human Billboard Suit In 9th Circ.

    Golf caddies in a proposed antitrust class action that accuses PGA Tour Inc. of using professional caddies as "walking billboards" for sponsors asked an appeals court Wednesday to reverse the dismissal of their suit, arguing that a California judge failed to allow them to present all relevant evidence before throwing out their case.