Dirk Gently Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 So reading further, he feels that there *is* an issue with Jurisdiction due to the NFLPA filing before the arbitration was awarded. The judge, he says, would have to actually expand the law to claim Jurisdiction in this case. It was reported by others that Jurisdiction arguments took up a significant part of the early portion of Tuesday's hearing. I suspect that might be the reason Judge Mazzant was troubled by the way the NFL played games with the announcement. The author offers no opinion on whether the award of the arbitration before the hearing was adjourned alters this in any way, but, based on his allegience, I take his silence on the issue to mean it is not significant... though I wonder why the NFL would bother with the dipsy-doo manipulation of the announcement time if it wasn't significant. fretgod, if you could take a look at the LMRA Jurisdiction portion (a couple of paragraphs in) and weigh in I'd appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretgod99 Posted September 7, 2017 Share Posted September 7, 2017 I don't practice labor law either, so take my musings with a grain of salt as well. I haven't seen the NFLPA's arguments with regard to jurisdiction, since they didn't reiterate in the supplemental brief, but the NFL's argument is pretty convincing. It may seem like some gamesmanship that they filed a new lawsuit immediately after the final decision by the arbitrator in order to determine forum of the lawsuit (moving it to New York), but it seems legit. Obviously I could be wrong, but so far as I am aware cases of this sort acquire subject matter jurisdiction at the time they are filed. Furthermore, cases of this sort generally do not have the capacity to acquire subject matter jurisdiction at a later date. What that means is if the court has the authority to resolve this case, one way or the other, it is based upon whether the court has jurisdiction over the case as soon as it is filed. If I had to make a prediction, the NFLPA's action in Texas probably gets dismissed. I'm not sure how they get around the fact that their case was filed before the final arbitration award. Since the statutory language seems pretty clear that courts cannot hear cases on the controversy until all administrative remedies have been exhausted (i.e., until the final arbitration award is actually handed down), it's hard to see how the court has jurisdiction. The NFLPA is making some arguments to get around that pretty massive hurdle, and who knows, maybe one will stick. But the weight of case law certainly seems to be against them. And, even if the district court finds a way to keep the case alive, that decision very likely gets overturned on appeal. Courts are very deferential to arbitration by design. As is noted in that blog and in this thread, by and large the attitude is, "If everything was done pursuant to the agreement that was made, we're not going to change anything even if we think the result is bad or wrong." Basically, it's a cake and eat it thing. You bargained for a process; you can't then come complain after the fact about the process you bargained for because it didn't end up working out how you wanted it to. Not saying Elliott's case is hopeless, but it's a really, really uphill battle. I think everybody seems to think he doesn't have a shot if this is heard in New York. And based off of my (relatively limited) understanding of what's happening legally here, his case is quite likely to be dismissed. Then it resorts to the NFL's request to confirm the award, which they filed in New York after the final decision was announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Gently Posted September 7, 2017 Share Posted September 7, 2017 One thing I don't get, if the Jurisdiction question is based on when the case is filed, then why the dipsy-doo with the announcement time? And then if it isn't, then why announce while the initial hearing is going on? I am genuinely trying to figure out what happened there... As for everything done pursuant to the agreement, I would think the difference from previous cases which they cite (the credible evidence requirement) is a significant one. That is, I do think they can show that the credible evidence standard was not met, and the standard is in the agreement. IOW, I think they can show that the NFL did not hold to its own agreement here, and that might fly in New York as well as here. But I do get the feeling that it's not likely to stay here in Dallas, nonwithstanding some fairly positive (for a Dallas fan) takes on Mazzant's mood from people who were in the courtroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 Are we supposed to get a decision on the TRO today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Gently Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 59 minutes ago, Forge said: Are we supposed to get a decision on the TRO today? 5pm central Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runaway Jim Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 9 minutes ago, Runaway Jim said: And fantasy owners everywhere rejoiced.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 Just remember that getting the TRO doesn't mean he WON the case. It's temporary relief until there's an adjudication on the merits, if any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNBlackFan Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 Is it possible Goodell is impeached? lol most hated league executive ever, in any professional league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DalCowboyzRule Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, Phire said: Just remember that getting the TRO doesn't mean he WON the case. It's temporary relief until there's an adjudication on the merits, if any. Sure, but he's going to play this whole season. This gives the Cowboys a whole offseason to plan for Zeke missing 6 games next year, which is big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DalCowboyzRule Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 Also, we did it fam #FreeZeke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 Just now, DalCowboyzRule said: Sure, but he's going to play this whole season. This gives the Cowboys a whole offseason to plan for Zeke missing 6 games next year, which is big. I agree, and his lawyers will drag their feet to avoid it affecting this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 5 minutes ago, Phire said: Just remember that getting the TRO doesn't mean he WON the case. It's temporary relief until there's an adjudication on the merits, if any. Yes, but that's quite a ways away. I think he'll get this season in full, right? And it gives fantasy players in redraft leagues who took him in the middle rounds an absolute steal, and guys who are in keeper leagues the chance to offload him this year for probably full value to guys who don't know better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul-mac Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 11 minutes ago, Phire said: Just remember that getting the TRO doesn't mean he WON the case. It's temporary relief until there's an adjudication on the merits, if any. Apparently he's got the injunction outright, not just a temporary restraining order (hence they're saying NFL will appeal, I don't think they could appeal a simple TRO). I hate this. Seems like any player suspended now is just going to sue the league and get it delayed until the league takes them to the second circuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DalCowboyzRule Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 5 minutes ago, paul-mac said: Apparently he's got the injunction outright, not just a temporary restraining order (hence they're saying NFL will appeal, I don't think they could appeal a simple TRO). I hate this. Seems like any player suspended now is just going to sue the league and get it delayed until the league takes them to the second circuit. You know what I hate? When the NFL suspends innocent players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.