Zeke Elliott TRO granted

[fretgod99]

Also, I hope everybody reading this understands that I don't really have a horse in this race. In this and the other thread all I'm trying to do is make sure people have a better understanding of the legal mechanisms at play. It can get a bit confusing when you read about what are ultimately some rather technical issues, especially if you're not well-versed in the relevant language.

So I'm not really commenting too much on the merits of anything, just trying to help anybody who's interested hopefully better understand what's going on.

[Forge]

1 minute ago, fretgod99 said:

Also, I hope everybody reading this understands that I don't really have a horse in this race. In this and the other thread all I'm trying to do is make sure people have a better understanding of the legal mechanisms at play. It can get a bit confusing when you read about what are ultimately some rather technical issues, especially if you're not well-versed in the relevant language.

So I'm not really commenting too much on the merits of anything, just trying to help anybody who's interested hopefully better understand what's going on.

Nor do I...but this has been a very good thread so far lol.

But I have a question, and maybe you can clear it up. This is a federal case, correct? The federal requirement for the prelim injunction is a little different than some state requirements, in that there is a second consideration that an be made for granting it. Yes, likelihood of success is important, as you were saying. But not the only requirement that can be utilized; it can either do that, or it can,  "sufficiently serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party seeking the injunctive relief". Can the latter be used by the judge to grant the TRO?

[Shanedorf]

28 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

Also, I hope everybody reading this understands that I don't really have a horse in this race. In this and the other thread all I'm trying to do is make sure people have a better understanding of the legal mechanisms at play. It can get a bit confusing when you read about what are ultimately some rather technical issues, especially if you're not well-versed in the relevant language.

So I'm not really commenting too much on the merits of anything, just trying to help anybody who's interested hopefully better understand what's going on.

Hat tip to all of you guys for sharing your insight on this matter. I really appreciate what you, Dirk, Incognito, Forge, broncofan and others bring to the table and this is FF at its finest imo.  Huge thx to all  

[fretgod99]

42 minutes ago, Forge said:

But I have a question, and maybe you can clear it up. This is a federal case, correct? The federal requirement for the prelim injunction is a little different than some state requirements, in that there is a second consideration that an be made for granting it. Yes, likelihood of success is important, as you were saying. But not the only requirement that can be utilized; it can either do that, or it can,  "sufficiently serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party seeking the injunctive relief". Can the latter be used by the judge to grant the TRO?

I actually need to go back and correct myself. I mistyped in one of my initial replies, then got caught up in the distinctions of evidence. I've been misleading here, so I'm a bit annoyed with myself. The standard is "a likelihood of success on the merits" as I mentioned, but I typed "more likely than not" when I meant "but not more likely than not". I wasn't initially going to include the parenthetical to avoid confusion, decided last minute to add it, mistyped, then ended up causing a lot of confusion. So apologies for that.

But what you're talking about here is relevant, yes. There's likely going to be a balancing going on between the irreparable harm that would result and the likelihood of winning. Some courts say you need a "nonnegligible" likelihood of winning, but that doesn't seem to be particularly common. Often times it's "strong" or "substantial" likelihood of success.

It's got to be better than a shot in the dark for sure. You can't really go with the "throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" method. But if you can show more likely than not, you've already won and don't need to bother with the rest of the case (which is why I'm a bit annoyed I didn't catch my mistake earlier, that's what I get for posting on my phone from court, I guess - herp derp).

But if anybody is really curious, this is what has to be demonstrated when seeking a TRO/Temporary Injunction. (And a TRO is basically just a very short term injunction used when the potential harm is alleged to be so severe that there's no time for notice and a hearing prior to issuing it. Typically they can't last longer than 10-14 days before you have a hearing. So really what we're talking about here is more akin to a temporary injunction.)

(1) whether the movant has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued;
(3) whether the injunction will cause substantial harm to others if it is issued; and
(4) whether granting the injunction will serve the public interest.

[minutemancl]

I'm glad that he is going to be playing against us, but again, the league's lack of consistency is maddening. When Odell got suspended for 1 game 2 years ago for his actions against the Panthers, the suspension was announced on Monday I believe, he appealed it, the suspension was upheld and announced on Wednesday, and he still sat that Sunday's game against the Vikings. The whole "Tuesday at 4pm" line is BS. The NFL just doesn't want Zeke to miss the Sunday night opener.

[Nova]

1 hour ago, fretgod99 said:

"Guilt" is unfortunately a bit confusing in this context. People (generally) use it referring to guilt in a criminal sense, which is part of the reason they have trouble understanding what's going on (how can he not be criminally convicted but the NFL finds him guilty, etc.). The NFL didn't find him "guilty" in any criminal sense. They found that there was sufficient evidence to show he violated their Domestic Violence policy. Those two things are drastically different and I think if people would pay more attention to that level of nuance, it would make a world of difference in this sort of conversation.

 

I agree with your overall point. There's a difference and many discrepancies between the law and the league.

It's just easier to say the league 'found him guilty' rather than say 'they felt there was sufficient evidence to show he violated their domestic violence policy'.

The point I'm trying to make is this; three years into this change in domestic violence policy for the NFL, there have been at least 18 cases-- of which they only found sufficient evidence to enforce the full 6 games twice and instead opted to enforce lesser CDTL suspensions in the other sixteen.

Has the league yet established something that could be considered 'precedent' through their own actions or inactions? Could Zeke's case be compared to other cases that had as little satisfactory evidence against the individual involved? Is there enough to show that the league's handling of this case as being relatively unfair?

I'm thinking probably not, but that's one really big way this case differs from Brady's.

 

[fretgod99]

20 minutes ago, Nova said:

It's just easier to say the league 'found him guilty' rather than say 'they felt there was sufficient evidence to show he violated their domestic violence policy'.

No doubt. The only reason I mention it though is because there's consistently a thread of responses (in this case and in others) where people don't understand why the NFL is punishing someone when they weren't convicted or charges weren't pursued. There's not infrequently a lot of "The NFL should abide by whatever the [criminal] courts decide" comments. That argument pretty fundamentally misconstrues the point of criminal courts as well as the NFL (and really any employer's) disciplinary policies.

So perhaps as annoying as it might be, I try to distinguish as much as possible to (hopefully) avoid some pf that confusion the next time something like this inevitably happens.

[Dirk Gently]

1 hour ago, fretgod99 said:

I never said they're the same, just that there are similarities. How similar they are deemed to be remains to be seen.

Yep. I just thought it was significant that Judge Mazzant (sp?) specifically noted their existence, according to people in the room. Also he seems to have been particularly put out by the NFL's last minute gamesmanship with the announcement of Henderson's decision.

 

[Dirk Gently]

1 hour ago, fretgod99 said:

Also, I hope everybody reading this understands that I don't really have a horse in this race. In this and the other thread all I'm trying to do is make sure people have a better understanding of the legal mechanisms at play. It can get a bit confusing when you read about what are ultimately some rather technical issues, especially if you're not well-versed in the relevant language.

So I'm not really commenting too much on the merits of anything, just trying to help anybody who's interested hopefully better understand what's going on.

Likewise, in case anyone didn't know, I am a die hard cowboys fan and am undoubtably filter this through that lens. I am thankful for all the input and I *am* listening... even as I am countering, at times.

[Dirk Gently]

55 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

I actually need to go back and correct myself. I mistyped in one of my initial replies, then got caught up in the distinctions of evidence. I've been misleading here, so I'm a bit annoyed with myself. The standard is "a likelihood of success on the merits" as I mentioned, but I typed "more likely than not" when I meant "but not more likely than not". I wasn't initially going to include the parenthetical to avoid confusion, decided last minute to add it, mistyped, then ended up causing a lot of confusion. So apologies for that.

But what you're talking about here is relevant, yes. There's likely going to be a balancing going on between the irreparable harm that would result and the likelihood of winning. Some courts say you need a "nonnegligible" likelihood of winning, but that doesn't seem to be particularly common. Often times it's "strong" or "substantial" likelihood of success.

It's got to be better than a shot in the dark for sure. You can't really go with the "throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" method. But if you can show more likely than not, you've already won and don't need to bother with the rest of the case (which is why I'm a bit annoyed I didn't catch my mistake earlier, that's what I get for posting on my phone from court, I guess - herp derp).

But if anybody is really curious, this is what has to be demonstrated when seeking a TRO/Temporary Injunction. (And a TRO is basically just a very short term injunction used when the potential harm is alleged to be so severe that there's no time for notice and a hearing prior to issuing it. Typically they can't last longer than 10-14 days before you have a hearing. So really what we're talking about here is more akin to a temporary injunction.)

(1) whether the movant has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued;
(3) whether the injunction will cause substantial harm to others if it is issued; and
(4) whether granting the injunction will serve the public interest.

Really nice clarification.  FWIW, the 4 points jibe entirely with what I've been reading. Local reporters are suggesting that the TRO would give Judge Mazzant 14-28 days to decide on the broader injunction... but that could easily be as simple as someone told them "about two weeks" and they treated it like an injury -- as "at least two weeks".

[RuskieTitan]

From what I've read, it's absolutely ridiculous the process the NFL went through in determining the suspension. Equally ridiculous is the clowns with the NFLPA giving the NFL the freedom to act like total morons and be well within the rights of the CBA.

 

Common sense should tell you the NFL has no leg and Zeke should play. Realistically, he's going to sit out 6 games because the NFL made him a target, and nothing will change that.

[fretgod99]

1 hour ago, Dirk Gently said:

Yep. I just thought it was significant that Judge Mazzant (sp?) specifically noted their existence, according to people in the room. Also he seems to have been particularly put out by the NFL's last minute gamesmanship with the announcement of Henderson's decision.

 

I'm never really excited with how the NFL conducts itself in these scenarios. So even if my posts sometimes come across as defending the NFL, it's more about just trying to give an objective perspective on how the legalities are playing out because (rightly so) most people don't have the experience to appreciate that part fully. But yeah, even when what the NFL does is legally or contractually permissible or whatever, it often times still feels sketch as hell. Like, it's technically correct (which is the best kind of correct!), but that's about it.

[fretgod99]

I think someone posted the Sports Illustrated article link earlier, but it probably bears repeating. It gives a really nice rundown of the status going into yesterday's hearing on the TRO.

[Nova]

1 hour ago, fretgod99 said:

I'm never really excited with how the NFL conducts itself in these scenarios. So even if my posts sometimes come across as defending the NFL, it's more about just trying to give an objective perspective on how the legalities are playing out because (rightly so) most people don't have the experience to appreciate that part fully. But yeah, even when what the NFL does is legally or contractually permissible or whatever, it often times still feels sketch as hell. Like, it's technically correct (which is the best kind of correct!), but that's about it.

Bureaucrat Fretgod, I hereby promote you to grade 37.

[Dirk Gently]

I put this link in the previous thread... it's been updated with a further discussion of relevant statutes. Again, the guy's a cowboys fan and also outside his direct area of specialty, so grain of salt and all that, but there's a tremendous amount of information, including the entire police file, several of Thompson's photos, and a transcript of the NFL appeal hearing.

https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2017/8/15/16153260/zekes-suspension-a-crash-course-on-what-you-need-to-know

 

Edit to add some specific discussion of the bits we've been focusing on here:

Quote

What is "substantial?" To a lay person, it might make one think you have to show you have a better than 50% chance of winning or even more. But that is not the case. Here is a discussion that Judge Mazzant had in a ruling back in January: Dialysis Patient Citizens v. Burwell

To satisfy the element of substantial likelihood of success, a plaintiff need not prove their case with absolute certainty. "A reasonable probability of success, not an overwhelming likelihood, is all that need be shown for preliminary injunctive relief."

One should also note that he eventually granted the preliminary injunction in that case. Another telling segment from a Fifth Circuit case, the governing circuit court:

the most compelling reason in favor of (granting a preliminary injunction) is the need to prevent the judicial process from being rendered futile by defendant's action or refusal to act.

Here, it can be said that if the court does not halt the suspension, the judicial process will be rendered futile.