Federal appeals court dismisses Ezekiel Elliott case.

[raiderrocker18]

3 hours ago, jrry32 said:

Federal courts haven't abandoned that approach. The stronger your showing of irreparable harm or likelihood of success on the merits, the weaker your showing of the other can be.

well then ****, i was right the first time. quickly read some articles about SCOTUS rejecting the sliding scale model tho. dont have that much time to research it, but shoulda stuck with my gut i guess

[jrry32]

12 minutes ago, raiderrocker18 said:

well then ****, i was right the first time. quickly read some articles about SCOTUS rejecting the sliding scale model tho. dont have that much time to research it, but shoulda stuck with my gut i guess

Well, I should qualify. SCOTUS altered the standard to raise the minimum standard. In that vein, it rejected the 9th Circuit's approach, but it still operates more or less the same. In Winter, the Supreme Court rejected the 9th Circuit's acceptance of a showing of a POSSIBILITY of irreparable harm. Instead, the Court demanded a PROBABILITY of irreparable harm even when the plaintiff showed a strong likelihood of success on the merits. But in preliminary injunction cases, courts still give you more leeway on irreparable harm/likelihood of success if you make a strong showing on the other.

[jebrick]

8 hours ago, jrry32 said:

Elliott isn't challenging Goodell's authority as far as I know. He's challenging the fairness of the process (i.e., he's challenging the arbitration on procedural grounds).

Which goes to the same case as Brady.  Elliot has to prove that the NFL did not follow the CBA in making their decision.  The SCOTUS has ruled that even a stupid decision by an arbitrator is up held if it is within the bounds of the CBA.

 

I still think Elliot will serve his 6 games.

[lancerman]

51 minutes ago, jebrick said:

Which goes to the same case as Brady.  Elliot has to prove that the NFL did not follow the CBA in making their decision.  The SCOTUS has ruled that even a stupid decision by an arbitrator is up held if it is within the bounds of the CBA.

 

I still think Elliot will serve his 6 games.

That's Elliot's problem. Brady had a stronger case because the rule on the books for equipment tampering was vague when it came to punishments and they tried to bundle it with contact detrimental to the game because he didn't turn over evidence that they didn't mandate he turn over. 

There's a pretty clear cut rule on the books in Elliot's case. So if Brady lost his, Elliot has no shot.

[jebrick]

It is more of the labor law rather than the criminal law.  The court does not( should not) care if Elliot/Brady DID IT.  The case is about whether the NFL followed the CBA in the decision to punish and the punishment.

[raiderrocker18]

10 hours ago, jrry32 said:

Well, I should qualify. SCOTUS altered the standard to raise the minimum standard. In that vein, it rejected the 9th Circuit's approach, but it still operates more or less the same. In Winter, the Supreme Court rejected the 9th Circuit's acceptance of a showing of a POSSIBILITY of irreparable harm. Instead, the Court demanded a PROBABILITY of irreparable harm even when the plaintiff showed a strong likelihood of success on the merits. But in preliminary injunction cases, courts still give you more leeway on irreparable harm/likelihood of success if you make a strong showing on the other.

That makes the most sense. Thanks for looking into it. 

And as discussed before, the irreparable harm here is a certainty and not a mere probability 

[Danger]

19 hours ago, Phire said:

Highly doubt another court grants another temporary injunction based on the same legal theories.

Roe if im ever in a jam, youre my attorney.

[Jakuvious]

4 hours ago, raiderrocker18 said:

That makes the most sense. Thanks for looking into it. 

And as discussed before, the irreparable harm here is a certainty and not a mere probability 

Just to play the skeptic here, is it, though? There's definite irreparable harm to the Dallas Cowboys, and to fantasy teams across the country, if Elliott misses 6 games. But what actual harm would that cause to Elliott from the court's perspective? I feel as though the only obvious damage the court would see being caused to Elliott would be the loss of 6 weeks worth of game checks. But that's not irreparable. That's actually incredibly easy for the league to resolve (just pay the man if he wins the appeal.) We're sports fans, so to us, missing 6 weeks is a huge deal. But if the court just sees playing in the NFL as a job, I'm not sure they'd care about that so much. If it was an office worker or something, you wouldn't hear the argument that they'll never get those 6 weeks of working back.

You said this, earlier:

Quote

there is no adequate legal remedy. This is simple. Money can't make up for missing a game. 

But there really isn't a quantifiable loss there. I'm just not sure a judge would care about that.

[Forge]

8 hours ago, jebrick said:

Which goes to the same case as Brady.  Elliot has to prove that the NFL did not follow the CBA in making their decision.  The SCOTUS has ruled that even a stupid decision by an arbitrator is up held if it is within the bounds of the CBA.

 

I still think Elliot will serve his 6 games.

Absolutely. The bolded is where the problem resides for players in this regard. That part of the CBA is the most bland and open ended thing you will ever see. Its insane. It really does give the NFL carte blanche to do whatever they want, however they want to do it. So it's nearly impossible for them to not follow the CBA because there is nothing in there for it really. It's so amazingly unfair and one sided, but that's the players' fault for agreeing to it. I never thought there was any chance that he didn't serve the suspension, the only question was when. 

[jrry32]

3 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Just to play the skeptic here, is it, though? There's definite irreparable harm to the Dallas Cowboys, and to fantasy teams across the country, if Elliott misses 6 games. But what actual harm would that cause to Elliott from the court's perspective? I feel as though the only obvious damage the court would see being caused to Elliott would be the loss of 6 weeks worth of game checks. But that's not irreparable. That's actually incredibly easy for the league to resolve (just pay the man if he wins the appeal.) We're sports fans, so to us, missing 6 weeks is a huge deal. But if the court just sees playing in the NFL as a job, I'm not sure they'd care about that so much. If it was an office worker or something, you wouldn't hear the argument that they'll never get those 6 weeks of working back.

You said this, earlier:

But there really isn't a quantifiable loss there. I'm just not sure a judge would care about that.

There not being a quantifiable loss only supports the argument that there's an irreparable injury. If it were quantifiable, damages would be an adequate remedy.

From the court's perspective, Elliott missing six games hurts his team's chances of succeeding, his chances of succeeding, and his future prospects as a player. In that vein, giving him back the checks doesn't make him whole.

[jrry32]

11 hours ago, jebrick said:

Which goes to the same case as Brady.  Elliot has to prove that the NFL did not follow the CBA in making their decision.  The SCOTUS has ruled that even a stupid decision by an arbitrator is up held if it is within the bounds of the CBA.

 

I still think Elliot will serve his 6 games.

He's not challenging the wisdom of the arbitrator's final decision. He's challenging the fairness of the process. Elliott does not have to prove that the NFL did not follow the CBA. Here's a quote from Judge Mazzant's opinion:

"However, the FAA creates a narrow exception that allows courts to intervene and vacate an award when a hearing is not fundamentally fair. An arbitration is fundamentally unfair when, among other things, 'the arbitrators are guilty of misconduct ... in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy.'"

Yes, the Brady case was similar, but here's how Mazzant distinguished it:

"The circumstances of this case are unmatched by any case this Court has seen. See generally Brady II, 820 F.3d 527; Nat'l Football League Mgmt. Council v. Nat'l Football League Players ***'n, 125 F.Supp.3d 449 ('Brady I'). In Brady I and Brady II, Tom Brady sought to compel an investigator's notes and testimony from the NFL's general counsel, Jeff Pash. Brady I, 125 F.Supp.3d at 470–71. The Second Circuit ultimately held that the arbitrator's denial of this request was not fundamentally unfair since the evidence was not material and pertinent to the case. Brady II, 820 F.3d at 528.

Here, Elliott is accused of engaging in domestic violence against Thompson, an allegation he denies. Further, the NFLPA sought to (1) access to investigators' notes; (2) cross-examine Thompson; and (3) question Commissioner Goodell. Such requests were denied. Unlike Brady I and Brady II, the evidence and testimony precluded is material, pertinent, and critically important to Elliott's case. See general id. Additionally, this case concerns withheld material evidence from the NFLPA and Elliot, and possibly Commissioner Goodell. As such, this case involves essential evidence that was sought and denied resulting in a fundamentally unfair hearing.

Fundamental unfairness is present throughout the entire arbitration process. Due to such fundamental unfairness, the Court's intervention is justified. The NFLPA was not given the opportunity to discharge its burden to show that Goodell's decision was arbitrary and capricious. At every turn, Elliott and the NFLPA were denied the evidence or witnesses needed to meet their burden. Fundamental unfairness infected this case from the beginning, eventually killing any possibility that justice would be served. Accordingly, the Court finds that the NFLPA demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits."

[Jakuvious]

9 hours ago, jrry32 said:

There not being a quantifiable loss only supports the argument that there's an irreparable injury. If it were quantifiable, damages would be an adequate remedy.

From the court's perspective, Elliott missing six games hurts his team's chances of succeeding, his chances of succeeding, and his future prospects as a player. In that vein, giving him back the checks doesn't make him whole.

I don't see it, though. The team's chance of succeeding is irrelevant. The team isn't in the case. It's a stretch to argue him missing these 6 games damage his future prospects. Him being guilty would ruin his reputation, but there's really nothing about these 6 games that has much bearing on his actual future career. Maybe legacy or accolades, but that's reeeeeeally stretching things.

And this is all moot if you get a sports literate judge or whatever. A sports fan wold be more likely to see value in those things. I'm just not sure I see a court buying into the idea that missing work is, in itself, and irreparable damage. Elliott's career will go on the same either way, just with 6 games less of statistical production. The only irreparable damage I would see that's clear would be his reputation, but that's kind of already done with and the status of the suspension before the hearing doesn't hold too much bearing on that.

[jrry32]

1 minute ago, Jakuvious said:

I don't see it, though. The team's chance of succeeding is irrelevant. The team isn't in the case. It's a stretch to argue him missing these 6 games damage his future prospects. Him being guilty would ruin his reputation, but there's really nothing about these 6 games that has much bearing on his actual future career. Maybe legacy or accolades, but that's reeeeeeally stretching things.

And this is all moot if you get a sports literate judge or whatever. A sports fan wold be more likely to see value in those things. I'm just not sure I see a court buying into the idea that missing work is, in itself, and irreparable damage. Elliott's career will go on the same either way, just with 6 games less of statistical production. The only irreparable damage I would see that's clear would be his reputation, but that's kind of already done with and the status of the suspension before the hearing doesn't hold too much bearing on that.

The team's chance of succeeding isn't irrelevant at all. Elliott is a key player, and many of these guys are in it for more than just money. The judge doesn't have to be a sports fan. The lawyers brief the issue. I'll just go ahead and quote Judge Mazzant again here:

Quote

Elliott is faced with missing six games, which is a large portion of the NFL's season, and potentially deprives Elliott of the ability to achieve individual successes and honors. (Dkt. # 5, Exhibit 1 at ¶¶ 5, 8). The careers of professional athletes are “short and precarious, providing a limited window in which players have the opportunity to play football in pursuit of individual and team achievements.” (Dkt. # 5, Exhibit 1 at ¶ 6). The Court joins the long line of cases that have previously held that improper suspensions of professional athletes can result in irreparable harm to the player. Nat'l Football League Players ***'n v. Nat'l Football League, 598 F.Supp.2d 971, 982 (D. Minn. 2008) (“Williams”) (citing Jackson, 802 F.Supp. 226, 230–31 (D. Minn. 1992)); Brady v. NFL, 779 F.Supp.2d 992, 1005 (D. Minn. 2011), rev'd on other grounds, 644 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2011); Prof'l Sports, Ltd. v. Va. Squires Basketball Club Ltd, 373 F.Supp. 946, 949 (W.D. Tex. 1974). The Court finds that Elliott is likely to suffer irreparable harm if he is improperly suspended based on a fundamentally unfair arbitration proceeding. See id.

 

[Jakuvious]

6 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

The team's chance of succeeding isn't irrelevant at all. Elliott is a key player, and many of these guys are in it for more than just money. The judge doesn't have to be a sports fan. The lawyers brief the issue. I'll just go ahead and quote Judge Mazzant again here:

 

Fair. Thanks for the source there. It's a good answer to my thought.

[jrry32]

11 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Fair. Thanks for the source there. It's a good answer to my thought.

Not a problem. And while I think Judge Mazzant wrote a well-reasoned opinion, that unfortunately doesn't mean another judge will agree. The Fifth Circuit punted the case on procedural grounds. That indicates to me that they also felt he covered his bases well. We'll see what happens in this next step. While there are implications that the Southern District of New York is somehow more NFL-friendly because the NFL is in New York, it's simply not accurate.

The truth is that it'll be the luck of the draw. My only guess as to why the NFLPA chose to file in the EDTX instead of the SDNY is that they felt that Fifth Circuit precedents offered better support for their case than Second Circuit precedents.(which actually surprises me)

Regardless, it'll be interesting to see how this pans out.