Florida Supreme Court Transfers Pittman v. NCAA for Appellate Review as Calls Grow for Attorney General Review

By Pittman’s Pocket Investigative Report

TAMPA, FL — Qhawe Brian Edward Pittman has advanced his legal fight against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) after the Supreme Court of Florida transferred his appeal for review to the Second District Court of Appeal, signaling that the matter belongs within the appellate court’s jurisdiction rather than ending the case outright.

The case, originally filed under Lower Tribunal No. 20-CA-001723 and later assigned Supreme Court Case No. SC2026-0670, involves allegations of recruiting misrepresentation, unlawful restraint of athlete opportunity, antitrust violations, consumer protection concerns, and judicial irregularities tied to the handling of the matter.

Rather than dismissing the appeal, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the issues raised fall within the jurisdiction of the Second District Court of Appeal in St. Petersburg. The Court further ordered that the transferred case be treated as though it had originally been filed there, preserving Pittman’s original filing date and allowing the appellate process to continue.

For Pittman, the transfer represents more than procedure—it represents continued access to judicial review.

“This was never simply about one case,” Pittman said. “This is about fairness for athletes, accountability for institutions, and whether the courts will fully examine what happened.”

At the center of the dispute are claims that NCAA-related conduct and recruiting structures created barriers that unlawfully restrained athlete advancement opportunities, particularly affecting HBCU athletes and overlooked football prospects. Pittman argues that recruiting representations, institutional conduct, and procedural handling within the case raise broader public concerns extending beyond his own litigation.

His legal position cites the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Act, the Consumer Credit Protection Act of 1968, Consumer Product Safety Standards of 1972, Uniform Commercial Code provisions, and Florida constitutional due process protections.

Pittman also contends that critical evidence was suppressed or disregarded during lower court proceedings and that late motions and discretionary rulings prevented full consideration of substantive claims. These concerns form part of his continuing appeal before the Second District Court of Appeal.

Legal observers note that while transfers between courts are often misunderstood as denials, they are not the same. In this instance, the Florida Supreme Court did not terminate the case; instead, it directed the matter to the appellate court deemed proper for review.

That distinction matters.

It allows arguments concerning due process violations, judicial abuse of discretion, antitrust implications, and NCAA accountability to proceed inside the correct appellate venue.

At the same time, Pittman is calling for review beyond the courts.

He is preparing a formal request to the Office of the Florida Attorney General seeking examination of NCAA conduct, consumer protection concerns, and broader institutional practices affecting student-athletes. He argues that the issue should be viewed not only as litigation, but as a matter of statewide public interest.

“This case deserves sunlight,” Pittman stated. “Justice cannot exist where evidence is buried and power goes unchecked.”

The request asks state officials to examine whether recruiting practices, institutional representations, and enforcement structures have created unfair barriers for athletes—particularly those within HBCU recruiting pipelines and independent football development circles.

If reviewed more broadly, the implications could reach far beyond a single plaintiff and reopen larger conversations about athlete rights, recruiting transparency, and institutional accountability across college athletics.

As the case moves to the Second District Court of Appeal, many within HBCU football circles, independent scouting communities, and legal observers are watching closely.

For Pittman, the next phase is clear: appellate review, public accountability, and a continued push for answers.

The legal fight continues.