The headlines posted by various media outlets will draw plenty of clicks. The story is far less salacious, at least for now.
In the ongoing civil lawsuit against former NFL quarterback and former Fox analyst Mark Sanchez arising from the October 2025 incident in Indianapolis, the plaintiff and his lawyers are trying to push the litigation from federal court back to state court. The effort has sparked the filing of documents aimed at defeating Fox’s effort to keep the case in federal court.
It’s confusing, I know. Residents of a given state generally prefer to sue out-of-state parties in the state court system, where the judges are elected and re-elected by other residents of the state. Out-of-state defendants generally prefer to move the case to federal court, where the judges have lifetime appointments.
The distinction may seem largely meaningless on the surface. It often determines, directly or indirectly, the outcome of the entire case.
In this specific case, Perry Tole has sued Sanchez for injuries suffered during an altercation with Sanchez. Tole eventually stabbed Sanchez multiple in self-defense. Sanchez faces a criminal trial; Tole was not charged.
Based on reporting from Fox 59 in Indianapolis and the Daily Mail, paperwork recently filed by Tole’s lawyers as part of what’s known as a “motion to remand” argues that the removal of the case to federal court should fail.
The defendants have taken the position that Tole’s lawyers added Indiana-based Huse Culinary (the parent company of the St. Elmo Steak House) to the case for the sole purpose of preventing the case from being moved to federal court, and that Tole has no real claim against Huse/St. Elmo’s. In response, Tole’s lawyers are attempting to show that Huse/St. Elmo’s may have liability for serving Sanchez while he was impaired.
Tole’s lawyers contend that Sanchez was under the influence of one or more substances during the incident that left Tole injured. From the court filing: “[This is] including but not limited to cocaine, marijuana, fentanyl, and alcohol. Plaintiff has cause to believe that one or more of these substances may have been consumed in one of Huse’s establishments, which caused or contributed to Sanchez’s impairment and his subsequent negligent and/or knowing conduct.”
Since St. Elmo’s doesn’t sell cocaine, marijuana, or fentanyl (that nasty-ass cocktail sauce is the closest thing), the sole substance Sanchez could have gotten there is alcohol. So why mention the drugs? Drawing media attention is one of the most plausible explanations.
Sanchez’s lawyer, Andrew M. McNeil, said this in a statement to the Daily Mail: “These are allegations in a civil filing, nothing more, and they should be treated accordingly. Allegations are not evidence. The truth will be determined by facts and evidence presented at trial, and we look forward to presenting them at the appropriate time.”
For now, and as explained by Fox 59, Tole’s lawyers argue that further investigation regarding the role of Huse/St. Elmo’s is needed — and that the development of such evidence could prove that Huse/St. Elmo’s may have liability to Tole.
Again, the plaintiff’s goal at this point is to get the case back to state court. The defendants believe that the addition of Huse/St. Elmo’s was a sham aimed at keeping the case out of federal court. Tole’s lawyers are trying to show there’s a potentially viable claim against the only Indiana-based defendant in the case.
Read the full article here
