The arguments that didn't make the briefs

Marc Goldich’s two filings in Goldich v. Dylus run to about 700 words between them and made 660,000 people read a fantasy football pleading. They are also, by the appellant’s own account, a fraction of his case. “I made numerous funny arguments in the chat,” he told this publication Wednesday night, before forwarding the ones he likes best. We reproduce them for the record, with the Court’s preliminary views.

Retaliation

After the Commissioner’s order directed that the draft proceed “with all members in timely attendance and good spirits,” the appellant read the sentence as a threat. “Retaliation against a litigant for exercising his appellate rights. Bold to put that in writing. 10P and this all goes away.”

The argument has a pedigree. Adverse action following protected activity, in close temporal proximity, is the standard prima facie case. What the appellant would have to show is that “good spirits” is an adverse action. Given the League, it may be.

Parallel-universe proceedings

The appellant’s most ambitious theory concerns the order’s silence on jurisdiction across timelines. “Unfortunately, the Order is silent as to parallel-universe proceedings, which remain expressly reserved. Unless the 10P relief is granted, Appellant intends to commence duplicative litigation in every accessible timeline, including at least one in which the Commissioner has competent counsel. Govern yourself accordingly.”

The Court has no view on the existence of other timelines. It notes that in every one of them the Commissioner would be represented by himself, and that the appellant’s confidence in finding a universe with competent counsel for him is the most optimistic statement in the record.

The dues strike

The appellant next turned to class expansion and, with it, leverage. “Appellant will now begin identifying additional members of the putative class. I note, purely as a matter of law, that at least two prospective class members currently have outstanding financial obligations to the Commissioner. Whether those obligations remain enforceable during the pendency of this litigation is, regrettably, an issue of first impression. See In re League Dues, 4 F.F. 11 (2026) (‘Payment withheld pending further review.’). 10P.”

This is the argument that likely moved the draft. Two members not paying their dues is a scheduling dispute; two members not paying their dues with a citation is a labor action. The Court observes that In re League Dues appears in no reporter it can locate and that the appellant appears to have decided it himself, which under the principle of “too late” is now precedent.

Cost apportionment

Having won, the appellant billed his class. “David, as co-named plaintiff, this seems like an appropriate time to advise you that all fees, costs, and administrative expenses associated with this litigation will be apportioned equally among the named plaintiffs.” David Lopez-Kurtz, whose only act in this litigation was to have children at the same school, is now responsible for half of nothing, which the appellant has not yet invoiced.

Settlement

The appellant’s final word treats the Commissioner’s decree as a concession. “Appellant accepts the Commissioner’s confession of error. The parties appear to have reached a settlement in principle: 10P, with each side to bear its own costs and bribes.” The Commissioner has confessed nothing and denies granting anything. The Court addresses the consequences in its order on mootness.

The formatting dispute

One argument was not the appellant’s but was made against him. After a member observed that the filings were left-aligned, the appellant defended the choice: “ridiculous. left aligned is perfectly normal.” The Commissioner: “good point. Which is why I require right-aligned.” The Court declines to adopt a local rule on alignment. It notes that the Commissioner’s own order is fully justified, which is more than can be said for its reasoning.

A note on the appellant’s practice

Asked about the attention, the appellant said: “Turns out the most widely read motions of my legal career are fake ones about fantasy football.” He then reconsidered, citing his class action over the Pacquiao-Mayweather fight and a suit against the SEC, which “may rival this but it’s early yet.” Both are real. Neither moved a draft.