PFT: Judge rejects NFL’s position on “fundamental fairness” in arbitrations

[JoeKing]

I am not talking about the merits of each case. The poster appears to be saying the NFL did not appeal the Brady ruling. But they did appeal it and eventually won. Just stating a fact for the record.

Are you really that dense? Do you not understand that in the Brady case, after the NFL got the court to agree that fundamental fairness was not in play, Brady had no other course of action but to take his suspension? That is why the NFL won against Brady. The NFL isn't winning this one.

 

[Nightman]

I am not talking about the merits of each case. The poster appears to be saying the NFL did not appeal the Brady ruling. But they did appeal it and eventually won. Just stating a fact for the record.

It is what Kevinicus said...... that the NFL didn't appeal the TRO or injunction in the Brady case like they did in Texas or like they are going to do in NY

But the circumstances were reversed.... Brady won at the District Court in early Sept 2015 so he wasn't suspended and didn't need an injunction..... it was the NFL appealing to CA2 this time......in late Sept the NFL passed on getting an injunction to keep him off the field until the case was over ....... briefs were filed in Dec...... a hearing was held in March 2016 and they reversed the District Court until April of 2016 by a 2-1 ruling

 

[Sydla]

Are you really that dense? Do you not understand that in the Brady case, after the NFL got the court to agree that fundamental fairness was not in play, Brady had no other course of action but to take his suspension? That is why the NFL won against Brady. The NFL isn't winning this one.

Again, we aren't talking about the merits of each case and the arguments of each case.

Poster said the NFL didn't appeal the Brady decision. They did. They appealed the Brady decision to the CA2.

The difference here,. as noted by Nightman and Kevinicus, appears to be that the NFL would have to challenge the injunction if granted. In the Brady case, he won the suit against the NFL (didn't need an injunction because it was the offseason) in the lower court, the NFL appealed and the Appeals court reversed the lower court decision and Brady agreed to the suspension after his en banc request was denied.

So the question now is would the NFL appeal the injunction if granted in a few weeks?

 

[ThreeandOut]

Am I missing something? The NFL did appeal the lower court's finding in the Brady case. The Appeals court ruled for the NFL, reinstated the penalty and Brady had to sit four games to start the season.

He was referring to the injunction.

 

[tyke1doe]

Not GOOD jazz music.

Ha!

 

[Sydla]

He was referring to the injunction.

So then what's the option for the NFL? Just wait until the full hearing? What is lost by not appealing the injunction?

Just trying to figure out what the NFL is working with here at this point.

 

[Nightman]

So the question now is would the NFL appeal the injunction if granted in a few weeks?

They appealed it in Texas so I would bet they would appeal in NY ..... that is if Judge Fallia grants the injunction in a couple weeks

 

[Sydla]

They appealed it in Texas so I would bet they would appeal in NY ..... that is if Judge Fallia grants the injunction in a couple weeks

That's what I figured but someone suggested that Wallach is saying he thinks they may not.

So if they decided to not appeal the injunction, what would be next? Just a hearing of the full case at some point?

 

[ThreeandOut]

So then what's the option for the NFL? Just wait until the full hearing? What is lost by not appealing the injunction?

Just trying to figure out what the NFL is working with here at this point.

The appeal on the injunction probably won't be heard until after the season. At that point there's no hurry to enforce the suspension and it's just delaying the process of going to trial. But that's just my thoughts, not sure what Wallach's rationale was.

 

[Iago33]

So, we have judges from Bush and Obama siding with one another, Right? I know there's no politics involved in this case, just found that interesting since I believe someone brought that up that Crotty was a GWB pick?

Weird!! If judges can agree across party lines, maybe we can, too. Hot dog! There's hope for America, after all.

 

[JoeKing]

Again, we aren't talking about the merits of each case and the arguments of each case.

Poster said the NFL didn't appeal the Brady decision. They did. They appealed the Brady decision to the CA2.

The difference here,. as noted by Nightman and Kevinicus, appears to be that the NFL would have to challenge the injunction if granted. In the Brady case, he won the suit against the NFL (didn't need an injunction because it was the offseason) in the lower court, the NFL appealed and the Appeals court reversed the lower court decision and Brady agreed to the suspension after his en banc request was denied.

So the question now is would the NFL appeal the injunction if granted in a few weeks?

The NFL doesn't have that option. If the injunction is granted then that's all the legal maneuvering that can be done until the case is actually heard my the court. Reminds me of the scene in "A Few Good Men" when Demi Moore's character didn't want to accept the judge's overruling of her objection. She got frustrated a pleaded to the judge... "I strenuously object your honor". She got spanked back down by the judge like a red headed step child.

 

[Sydla]

The NFL doesn't have that option. If the injunction is granted then that's all the legal maneuvering that can be done until the case is actually heard my the court. Reminds me of the scene in "A Few Good Men" when Demi Moore's character didn't want to accept the judge's overruling of her objection. She got frustrated a pleaded to the judge... "I strenuously object your honor". She got spanked back down by the judge like a red headed step child.

That's technically not accurate based on what is said above.

If the judge grants the injunction in two weeks, the NFL could appeal the injunction with the Appeals Court. Now it might be a moot point if the hearing for the appeal of the injunction wouldn't happen until late or after the season. But if they could get a fast tracked appeal hearing, the NFL could file an appeal if they wanted. The question is would they want to if they could get a quick hearing?

 

[LandryFan]

The political forum was ended with very good reason. However, as this case goes forward it would lay out intersting examples of the typical differences between each side and it would be an intersting discussion if everyone could act like civil adults. Which is clear can’t happen.

This judge is the first to go outside of party lines with his opinion. This also says a lot about the injustice of this case. Clearly, it’s not like the Brady case.

Maybe I have misunderstood the proceedings up to now, but it seems as though Zeke's legal team rushed to file in TX thinking that they could beat the NFL from filing in NY. Now, the TX courts have sided with the NFL, while the NY court has sided with Zeke. Am I off base here? Seems everything is bass-ackwards from what I thought it would be.

 

[JoeKing]

That's technically not accurate based on what is said above.

If the judge grants the injunction in two weeks, the NFL could appeal the injunction with the Appeals Court. Now it might be a moot point if the hearing for the appeal of the injunction wouldn't happen until late or after the season. But if they could get a fast tracked appeal hearing, the NFL could file an appeal if they wanted. The question is would they want to if they could get a quick hearing?

This is the NFL's case against Ezekiel Elliot, they are the ones pressing the issue. Elliott has appealed the suspension and that appeal was not successful when Harold Henderson's ruling concurred with the original ruling to suspend him 6 games. Even before Henderson's ruling was announced, Elliott filed in a Texas court for a TRO and injunction of the suspension until a court of law can address the actual case. These motions were granted in Texas and the Texas judge eventually ruled that a lack of fundamental fairness is a factor in this case, ruling in Elliott's favor. The NFL appealed the Texas judges ruling to the 5th Circuit of Appeals in New Orleans not on the merit of the actual case, but a technicality because the NFLPA filed too soon and should not have done so until Henderson's ruling was announced. The 5th Circuit agreed but also stated the NFLPA can file for an en banc rehearing and so the ruling by the judge in Texas was reversed, which means the suspension was back in force. The fundamental fairness issue has not been settled but it has been ruled it is in play contrary to what happen in the Brady case. The suspension is now on hold because the court wants to find time to actually address this issue. The NFL has no case to get this hold overturned before the court hears the merits of the case.

 

[Sydla]

This is the NFL's case against Ezekiel Elliot, they are the ones pressing the issue. Elliott has appealed the suspension and that appeal was not successful when Harold Henderson's ruling concurred with the original ruling to suspend him 6 games. Even before Henderson's ruling was announced, Elliott filed in a Texas court for a TRO and injunction of the suspension until a court of law can address the actual case. These motions were granted in Texas and the Texas judge eventually ruled that a lack of fundamental fairness is a factor in this case, ruling in Elliott's favor. The NFL appealed the Texas judges ruling to the 5th Circuit of Appeals in New Orleans not on the merit of the actual case, but a technicality because the NFLPA filed too soon and should not have done so until Henderson's ruling was announced. The 5th Circuit agreed but also stated the NFLPA can file for an en banc rehearing and so the ruling by the judge in Texas was reversed, which means the suspension was back in force. The fundamental fairness issue has not been settled but it has been ruled it is in play contrary to what happen in the Brady case. The suspension is now on hold because the court wants to find time to actually address this issue. The NFL has no case to get this hold overturned before the court hears the merits of the case.

This is simply a question of procedures and options for the NFL at this point. Again, we aren't talking the merits of the case and fundamental fairness. Simply, what can happen over the next few weeks.

Based on what was said above, Elliott has his TRO that makes him eligible for two weeks. There will be hearing for the prelim injunction around October 30th. If the judge issues the injunction, the NFL then has the option to appeal that injunction. The question then is will they appeal? As noted above, if the timing doesn't work out where the hearing on the appeal would be at the end of the season or in the offseason, there is probably no reason to appeal the injunction and just go on with the full suit. However, and this appears not exactly likely, if the NFL could somehow get a fast tracked hearing on the appeal of the injunction where it could still be possible for Elliott to serve his 6 games this year, they have the option to appeal the injunction.

 

[Kevinicus]

This is simply a question of procedures and options for the NFL at this point. Again, we aren't talking the merits of the case and fundamental fairness. Simply, what can happen over the next few weeks.

Based on what was said above, Elliott has his TRO that makes him eligible for two weeks. There will be hearing for the prelim injunction around October 30th. If the judge issues the injunction, the NFL then has the option to appeal that injunction. The question then is will they appeal? As noted above, if the timing doesn't work out where the hearing on the appeal would be at the end of the season or in the offseason, there is probably no reason to appeal the injunction and just go on with the full suit. However, and this appears not exactly likely, if the NFL could somehow get a fast tracked hearing on the appeal of the injunction where it could still be possible for Elliott to serve his 6 games this year, they have the option to appeal the injunction.

I think they would file an appeal either way as pretty much standard practice. They may be unlikely to win, but it doesn't really hurt for them to try. They'd get laughed at, again, for trying to argue about irreparable harm, but I still they they will appeal. They'll exhaust every avenue that is available to them.

 

[DogFace]

Maybe I have misunderstood the proceedings up to now, but it seems as though Zeke's legal team rushed to file in TX thinking that they could beat the NFL from filing in NY. Now, the TX courts have sided with the NFL, while the NY court has sided with Zeke. Am I off base here? Seems everything is bass-ackwards from what I thought it would be.

So far 5 judges have made rulings. The original judge that I guess Zeke’s team wanted from Texas scolded the Nfl and ruled harshly against the nfl.
The 3 from New Orleans—two of which ruled in favor of the nfl one in favor of Zeke. Then the latest New York judge that ruled in favor of Zeke and mentioned the case wasn’t like Brady and may have not been fair.

To my understanding the New Orleans judges ruled that the filing was premature and not really agaisnt or for the fairness. I think.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

So far 5 judges have made rulings. The original judge that I guess Zeke’s team wanted from Texas scolded the Nfl and ruled harshly against the nfl.
The 3 from New Orleans—two of which ruled in favor of the nfl one in favor of Zeke. Then the latest New York judge that ruled in favor of Zeke and mentioned the case wasn’t like Brady and may have not been fair.

To my understanding the New Orleans judges ruled that the filing was premature and not really agaisnt or for the fairness. I think.

This is correct. The CA5 judges that ruled the case be dismissed did so only on the jurisdiction issue. Did not address the fundamental fairness issue.

 

[JoeKing]

This is simply a question of procedures and options for the NFL at this point. Again, we aren't talking the merits of the case and fundamental fairness. Simply, what can happen over the next few weeks.

Based on what was said above, Elliott has his TRO that makes him eligible for two weeks. There will be hearing for the prelim injunction around October 30th. If the judge issues the injunction, the NFL then has the option to appeal that injunction. The question then is will they appeal? As noted above, if the timing doesn't work out where the hearing on the appeal would be at the end of the season or in the offseason, there is probably no reason to appeal the injunction and just go on with the full suit. However, and this appears not exactly likely, if the NFL could somehow get a fast tracked hearing on the appeal of the injunction where it could still be possible for Elliott to serve his 6 games this year, they have the option to appeal the injunction.

On what basis would the NFL appeal the injunction? The issue is fundamental fairness... the courts wants to hear the case. If the NFL wants to avoid that from happening then what is their technicality? They have none. They will have to wait until the court docket finds time for the case.

 

[LandryFan]

So far 5 judges have made rulings. The original judge that I guess Zeke’s team wanted from Texas scolded the Nfl and ruled harshly against the nfl.
The 3 from New Orleans—two of which ruled in favor of the nfl one in favor of Zeke. Then the latest New York judge that ruled in favor of Zeke and mentioned the case wasn’t like Brady and may have not been fair.

To my understanding the New Orleans judges ruled that the filing was premature and not really agaisnt or for the fairness. I think.

Now that I read your recap, my recollection of the proceedings as they have been so far came back to me. Thanks, bud!