Quinn named in second lawsuit by former agent
Posted January 10, 2012
Saint Louis — Former North Carolina football player Robert Quinn is being sued by his former agent Carl Carey.
Carey’s recent lawsuit expands on a similar suit filed in July that sought damages from Quinn for breach of contract after the former University of North Carolina defensive end and eventual NFL first-round draft pick changed management from Champion Proconsulting Group and Carl Carey to Impact Sports Football.
Added to the list of five defendants in Monday’s filing is former teammate of Quinn while at UNC, Marvin Austin.
The lawsuit outlines seven counts of damages, including a claim that Austin conspired with, and was even paid to recruit for, Impact Sports and agents Christina White, Mitchell Frankel and Tony Fleming in luring Quinn away from Carey. It also requests a trial by jury on all claims.
The original Standard Representation Agreement between Carey and Quinn, signed by Quinn’s father in December of 2010, called for the agent to receive three percent of Quinn’s potential professional contract.
The agreement also allowed for Carey to cover personal expenses for Quinn – which he used on suits, travel and training services among other things – with the stipulation that if Quinn terminated Carey within two years that money would be reverted into a loan agreement separate of the SRA.
In July, Carey sought a temporary restraining order to prevent Quinn’s new agent from negotiating with the St. Louis Rams who drafted him.
After the NFL PA recertified following an extended lockout, Quinn signed a $9.4 million contract that included a $5.3 million signing bonus. At three percent, Carey would have received a little less than half a million dollars.
Carey claims he was a contributor in helping Quinn restore his reputation after the NCAA ruled him permanently ineligible. Quinn and White argue that Carey did not do enough to market the former Tar Heel and that he was missing out on endorsement deals.
While Carey’s lawsuit filed in July called for specific damages, the recent lawsuit does not but rather asks the court to determine appropriate damages.