Indoor football team the Tucson Sugar Skulls has filed a lawsuit against two law firms and their partners, alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.
Indoor football team the Tucson Sugar Skulls (TSS) has filed a lawsuit against two law firms and their partners, alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with a failed sports betting licence application in Arizona.
The former sports betting licensing partner hopeful has alleged attorneys prioritised the interests of Fanatics over its own in a licensing dispute, despite representing them both.
The complaint, filed in Pima County Superior Court on 30 October, names defendants Heidi Staudenmaier and Snell & Wilmer, along with Adam Berger and Duane Morris.
It marks the latest twist in the team’s acrimonious fallout with its former partner after the two failed in their initial joint bid to get a sports betting licence, which included the Sugar Skulls filing for a restraining order against Fanatics to prevent it trying a second time in February 2024.
The most recent lawsuit read: “Defendants’ conduct was motivated by loyalty to long-term gaming and tribal clients, rather than to their actual client, TSS, and was intended to secure professional favour and future business opportunities for themselves and their firm.”
While Snell & Wilmer did not respond when contacted by NEXT.io before the deadline, a Duane Morris spokesperson said: “Duane Morris has not been formally notified of this complaint. We have no additional comment at this time.”
Fanatics also declined to comment on the lawsuit when contacted by NEXT.io.
The lawsuit stems from the firms’ joint representation of both the Sugar Skulls and betting operator Fanatics during an administrative appeal to the Arizona Department of Gaming (ADOG).
According to the legal filing, the Sugar Skulls partnered with Fanatics in 2023 to apply for one of two available event wagering operator licences under Arizona’s Event Wagering Act.
The agreement included a five-year contract with a sizeable annual guarantee for the Sugar Skulls, plus a percentage of Fanatics’ annual net profits and marketing fees.
However, the application was denied by ADOG on 29 August 2023, resulting in an administrative appeal.
The complaint alleges that during an informal settlement conference on 16 October 2023, the defendant attorneys separated the Sugar Skulls and Fanatics into different rooms and conducted private discussions without the football team present.
The lawsuit claims the attorneys negotiated terms that would harm the Sugar Skulls while helping Fanatics, specifically by advising Fanatics to abandon its partnership with the team in favour of reapplying with a tribal partner preferred by ADOG.
Sugar Skulls says lawyers took action without sign-off
Days after the conference, on 25 October 2023, the attorneys filed a stipulation to continue the November appeal hearing to January 2024 without the Sugar Skulls’ consent, according to the complaint.
The team states it objected to any continuance and would never have agreed to the delay.
On 30 October 2023, Staudenmaier withdrew from representing the Sugar Skulls via email but continued representing Fanatics in the same matter.
Berger and Duane Morris did not formally withdraw and continued joint communications with both parties through January 2024, the complaint says.
In January 2024, ADOG announced a new application window. On 17 January, the defendant attorneys filed a motion to withdraw Fanatics’ appeal, allowing the operator to apply in partnership with the Tonto Apache Tribe.
ADOG granted that application in March 2024, and Fanatics began accepting wagers shortly thereafter.
The Sugar Skulls’ appeal was ultimately dismissed by an administrative law judge on 22 July 2025, without findings of fact or legal conclusions. ADOG subsequently prohibited the team from applying for a new licence with another partner.
The complaint alleges that getting a licence would have triggered a $5m guaranteed payment under the Sugar Skulls’ contract with Fanatics, along with profit participation projected to be above $15m dollars over five years and $50m dollars over ten years.
The lawsuit seeks damages for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, as well as punitive damages.