Diego Pavia Lawsuit, Court Ruling Grants Extra Eligibility, Class Action Expands to Change NCAA Rules
Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia won a federal injunction in December 2024 allowing him to play another season, challenging NCAA rules that count junior college years against Division I eligibility as violations of antitrust law. The case number is 3:24-cv-01336 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. In October 2025, Pavia’s attorneys filed an amended complaint to transform the lawsuit into a class action, adding multiple players including Vanderbilt’s Tre Richardson, Louisiana Tech’s Andrew Burnette, Virginia Tech’s James Djonkam, and Oklahoma State’s Iman Oates. The expanded lawsuit aims to permanently eliminate NCAA rules requiring junior college seasons to count toward the four-year eligibility clock.
What Is the Diego Pavia Lawsuit About?
Pavia filed his lawsuit on November 8, 2024, in Tennessee federal district court arguing that NCAA rules barring his eligibility for the 2025-26 season because of his prior play at a junior college violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. The lawsuit challenges three specific NCAA bylaws:
- NCAA Bylaw 12.02.6 (Intercollegiate Competition Rule): Counts junior college seasons toward eligibility despite JUCO not being NCAA members
- NCAA Bylaw 12.8 (Five-Year Rule): Limits athletes to five years to complete four seasons
- NCAA Bylaw 14.3.3 (Three-Year Transfer Limitation): Restricts JUCO transfers to three years maximum
Pavia played two seasons at New Mexico Military Institute (JUCO) from 2020-2021, then two seasons at New Mexico State (2022-2023), before transferring to Vanderbilt for 2024. Under NCAA rules, his eligibility would have expired after the 2024 season.
What Are the Specific Allegations?
Pavia’s complaint alleges that NCAA eligibility rules are too restrictive in an era where players can earn NIL money, arguing the rules regarding “who can enter the labor market for NCAA Division I football” are directly connected to athlete opportunities for commercial transactions.
The lawsuit argues:
- Junior colleges lack the NIL opportunities, television exposure, and competitive advantages of Division I football
- NCAA rules unfairly limit Pavia’s ability to earn money by counting years in junior college—governed by a separate organization—against his NCAA eligibility
- Other athletes who compete outside high school in junior hockey or prep school leagues don’t lose eligibility
- The rules harm competition by giving former JUCO players less time in the D-I labor market compared to players who only attend D-I schools
According to the original lawsuit, Pavia expected to earn over $1 million in NIL deals for the 2025 season.
What Are the Most Recent Legal Developments?
December 18, 2024 – Preliminary Injunction Granted
Chief U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell Jr. granted Pavia a preliminary injunction blocking the NCAA from ruling him ineligible to compete in the 2025 season. Campbell reasoned that based on Pavia’s evidence, the challenged eligibility rules “harm competition” because former JUCO players lose the chance to enjoy the same amount of time in the NCAA D-1 labor market.
The judge found Pavia had a strong likelihood of success at trial against the NCAA rule limiting junior college players’ eligibility as a restraint of trade under the Sherman Act.
December 23, 2024 – NCAA Grants Blanket Waiver
The NCAA’s Division I Board of Directors granted a waiver allowing athletes “who attended and competed at a non-NCAA school for one or more years to remain eligible and compete in 2025-26 if those student-athletes would have otherwise used their final season of competition during the 2024-25 academic year”. This blanket waiver applies to all similarly situated athletes, not just Pavia.
October 1, 2025 – Appeals Court Dismisses NCAA Appeal
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the NCAA’s appeal as moot because the NCAA had granted Pavia and similarly situated athletes a waiver to play in 2025, meaning the court could provide no further effectual relief. The dismissal allows Pavia’s underlying lawsuit to continue at the district court level.
October 2025 – Lawsuit Expands to Class Action
Pavia’s attorneys filed an amended complaint to make the lawsuit a proposed class action, adding multiple players from different schools. New plaintiffs include Vanderbilt’s Tre Richardson, Louisiana Tech’s Andrew Burnette, Virginia Tech’s James Djonkam, Oklahoma State’s Iman Oates, and Tennessee’s Joey Aguilar.
Who Filed the Lawsuit and Who Are the Parties?
Plaintiff: Diego Pavia, Vanderbilt University quarterback
Additional Plaintiffs (Class Action): Tre Richardson (Vanderbilt), Andrew Burnette (Louisiana Tech), James Djonkam (Virginia Tech), Iman Oates (Oklahoma State), Joey Aguilar (Tennessee)
Defendant: National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
Pavia’s Legal Team: Attorneys Ryan Downton and Salvador M. Hernandez
Presiding Judges: Chief U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell Jr. and U.S. Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern
What Is the Defendant’s Response?
The NCAA argued in its opposition brief that Pavia hasn’t established the necessity for a preliminary injunction, claiming he knew of the challenged rules years ago and could have contested them earlier but waited until the second half of the 2024-25 season. The NCAA stated “the law does not allow him to manufacture an emergency by waiting to sue.”
NCAA lawyers warned that a ruling in favor of Pavia could have far-reaching implications, writing that “a mandatory injunction changing the status quo is not just about plaintiff, but rather stands to adversely disrupt the collegiate experiences and opportunities for tens of thousands of prospective and current student-athletes”.
In a statement after the December ruling, the NCAA said it was “disappointed” and appealed to Congress, stating that “altering the enforcement of rules overwhelmingly supported by NCAA member schools makes a shifting environment even more unsettled”.
The NCAA appealed the preliminary injunction to the Sixth Circuit but issued the blanket waiver while the appeal was pending. After the appeals court dismissed the case as moot, the underlying lawsuit continues.
Who Is Affected by This Lawsuit?
Directly Affected:
- Diego Pavia and the named plaintiffs in the class action
- All former JUCO athletes who would have exhausted eligibility in 2024-25 under the 2025-26 blanket waiver
- More than 35 players who filed their own lawsuits challenging various NCAA eligibility restrictions following Pavia’s initial victory
Potentially Affected:
- Future athletes who begin their careers at junior colleges
- NCAA member institutions recruiting JUCO transfers
- College football programs planning rosters based on eligibility rules
Judges in different districts have offered conflicting decisions in eligibility cases, leaving player eligibility dependent on their local district court judge.
What Damages or Relief Are Being Sought?
The lawsuit seeks:
- Injunctive relief blocking the NCAA from enforcing challenged eligibility rules against Pavia and class members
- Prevention of restitution penalties against schools that use players granted injunctive relief if they ultimately lose in court
- Permanent rule change eliminating the requirement that JUCO seasons count toward NCAA eligibility
- Protection of NIL earning opportunities for former JUCO players
Pavia’s attorney Ryan Downton stated the goal isn’t to destroy all eligibility rules, but rather to allow players five full years to play NCAA sports once they enroll at a four-year institution.
What Is the Current Status of the Case?
Pavia won the preliminary injunction in December 2024, just one month after filing the case, but the ruling technically applied only to Pavia initially. The NCAA’s blanket waiver extended the relief to all similarly situated athletes for 2025-26.
The Sixth Circuit dismissed the NCAA’s appeal in October 2025, allowing the underlying case to proceed at the district court level. The amended complaint to make the lawsuit a class action has been filed as of October 2025.
Pavia plans to declare for the NFL Draft and will not seek another year of NCAA eligibility, but wants to remain part of the lawsuit to ensure future players have the same opportunities.
What Should Affected Athletes Do?
For Current JUCO Athletes Facing Eligibility Issues:
- Review your eligibility status – Check whether the 2025-26 blanket waiver applies to your situation
- Consult legal counsel – Contact an attorney specializing in NCAA eligibility and antitrust law
- Document your NIL opportunities – Keep records of potential NIL deals you’ve lost due to eligibility restrictions
- Consider joining the class action – If you meet the criteria, contact Pavia’s legal team about joining the lawsuit
- File your own lawsuit if necessary – The blanket waiver only covers 2025-26; future athletes may need separate legal action
For Future JUCO Athletes:
- Monitor the progress of the class action lawsuit
- Understand that eligibility rules may change based on the lawsuit’s outcome
- Keep detailed records of your athletic career and any eligibility communications with the NCAA
What Are the Legal Precedents and Similar Cases?
Pavia’s case follows other recent antitrust challenges to the NCAA, including the Ed O’Bannon case and Shawne Alston case (NCAA v. Alston), where similar arguments about NCAA restrictions began gaining traction in courts.
Judge Campbell is the third judge in the past year to issue an injunction on NCAA rules due to concerns that they limit athletes’ ability to maximize earning potential. Earlier in 2024, Tennessee federal district judge Clifton Corker issued a preliminary injunction against the NCAA over rules limiting NIL collectives.
Other JUCO athlete lawsuits filed in Tennessee have had opposite outcomes depending on whether the athlete’s eligibility falls within the NCAA’s 2025-26 blanket waiver.
What Could This Mean for NCAA Rules and College Athletics?
The case could set a new precedent nationwide and permanently change NCAA eligibility rules. If the class action succeeds, it would:
- Eliminate counting JUCO years against NCAA eligibility for all future athletes
- Potentially open challenges to other NCAA eligibility restrictions
- Force the NCAA to restructure its eligibility framework
- Increase NIL earning opportunities for athletes with non-traditional paths to Division I
The Sixth Circuit noted in its October 2025 opinion that “Congress should consider stepping in to preserve these benefits for the millions of young athletes yet to come”, suggesting potential federal legislation may address college sports eligibility issues.
The NCAA is lobbying Congress for antitrust protections that would allow it to set eligibility rules and stop the flood of lawsuits challenging its regulations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is the Diego Pavia lawsuit case number?
The case is Pavia v. NCAA, No. 3:24-cv-01336, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
Q: Did Diego Pavia win his lawsuit against the NCAA?
Pavia won a preliminary injunction on December 18, 2024, blocking the NCAA from ruling him ineligible for the 2025 season. The underlying lawsuit continues and has expanded into a proposed class action.
Q: How many years did Diego Pavia play in junior college?
Pavia played two years at New Mexico Military Institute (JUCO) from 2020-2021, though the 2020 season wasn’t counted due to COVID-19 waivers.
Q: Does the NCAA waiver apply to all JUCO athletes?
The NCAA’s blanket waiver applies only to athletes “who attended and competed at a non-NCAA school for one or more years” and would have exhausted eligibility in 2024-25, covering only the 2025-26 season. It doesn’t apply to future athletes beyond that timeframe.
Q: Can Diego Pavia play in 2026?
Pavia plans to declare for the NFL Draft and will not seek another year of NCAA eligibility beyond 2025.
Q: How does this lawsuit affect other college athletes?
More than 35 players filed similar lawsuits following Pavia’s initial victory. The proposed class action aims to permanently change eligibility rules for all future JUCO transfers.
Q: What is the Sherman Antitrust Act claim in this case?
Pavia argued that the NCAA’s rule unlawfully restricted competition in the labor market for college athletes, claiming the rules constitute an illegal restraint of trade by limiting when athletes can earn NIL compensation.
For official court documents and case updates, consult PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) using case number 3:24-cv-01336. Affected athletes should seek legal counsel to understand their specific eligibility situation.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah