Federal appeals court dismisses Ezekiel Elliott case.

[mse326]

23 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 

Oddly enough I'm not so sure that is true in a legal sense. The money he loses is certainly no irreperable. So the question is whether not playing is considered a harm. I'm not sure it legally is. It's a harm to the Cowboys, not to Elliot himself really. You'd have to finagle an argument about stats and bonuses or future contracts. But it isn't that clear. I know lower courts generally agree but I haven't seen an appellate court do so and they are far less cavalier about saying that as it can/will flood courts with other claims similar to missing time.

Still you are wrong regarding irreperable harm being the most important. Likelihood of success has historically been seen as more important. If you can't show that likelihood you are done (yes I'm a lawyer too by the way). The district court's reasoning while cogent and a worthy argument didn't put nearly enough weight on how binding the procedural decisions or arbitrators are. They have to be clearly outside the bounds of the agreement such that the arbitrator wasn't actually interpreting the contract. There is no way you can show that here so there is no likelihood. It doesn't matter how strong the irreperable harm is if you can't show a likelihood of sucess you can't get a injuntion. The district court's opinion wasn't convincing here. I get that fundamental fairness is required but just switching an arbitrator's decision on relevance to one of fairness isn't enough. There is a ridiculously high bar. Ultimately taking the judge's conclusion to it's logical conclusion the Confrontation Clause applies because that was basically the biggest thing missing, the ability to cross examine. I don't see courts requiring that at all. If they did it would also have to apply to all civil cases (which the Constitution doesn't require) and if we are thinking current news college sexual assault hearings. There is no way a court is going to say that. 

And the district court really failed in terms of jurisdiction. From the moment it was filed I said in another thread that it makes no sense and there is no way it was ripe since the arbitrator hadn't ruled yet. There was clearly no standing and therefore no jurisdiction and should have been dismissed without reaching any of the merits of an injunction.

[jrry32]

5 hours ago, mse326 said:

Oddly enough I'm not so sure that is true in a legal sense. The money he loses is certainly no irreperable. So the question is whether not playing is considered a harm. I'm not sure it legally is. It's a harm to the Cowboys, not to Elliot himself really. You'd have to finagle an argument about stats and bonuses or future contracts. But it isn't that clear. I know lower courts generally agree but I haven't seen an appellate court do so and they are far less cavalier about saying that as it can/will flood courts with other claims similar to missing time.

Still you are wrong regarding irreperable harm being the most important. Likelihood of success has historically been seen as more important. If you can't show that likelihood you are done (yes I'm a lawyer too by the way). The district court's reasoning while cogent and a worthy argument didn't put nearly enough weight on how binding the procedural decisions or arbitrators are. They have to be clearly outside the bounds of the agreement such that the arbitrator wasn't actually interpreting the contract. There is no way you can show that here so there is no likelihood. It doesn't matter how strong the irreperable harm is if you can't show a likelihood of sucess you can't get a injuntion. The district court's opinion wasn't convincing here. I get that fundamental fairness is required but just switching an arbitrator's decision on relevance to one of fairness isn't enough. There is a ridiculously high bar. Ultimately taking the judge's conclusion to it's logical conclusion the Confrontation Clause applies because that was basically the biggest thing missing, the ability to cross examine. I don't see courts requiring that at all. If they did it would also have to apply to all civil cases (which the Constitution doesn't require) and if we are thinking current news college sexual assault hearings. There is no way a court is going to say that. 

And the district court really failed in terms of jurisdiction. From the moment it was filed I said in another thread that it makes no sense and there is no way it was ripe since the arbitrator hadn't ruled yet. There was clearly no standing and therefore no jurisdiction and should have been dismissed without reaching any of the merits of an injunction.

I disagree with pretty much everything in this post.

[mse326]

2 hours ago, jrry32 said:

I disagree with pretty much everything in this post.

1. What's the non speculative harm to the player in not being able to play

2. Do you really think he has a likelihood of winning ont he merits? If not do you really not think that court's almost universally deny injunctions when that's not met?

3. Do you really see an appellate court requiring cross examination saying it's fundamentally unfair not to? Do you not see how that would effect things like college sexual assault hearings?

4. How was the suit not filed too early?

[Shady Slim]

as far as i know (and i could be wrong) the nfl isn't suspending him for being a convicted beyond reasonable doubt woman beater are they?

isn't it more along the lines of the damage to the nfl brand from the entire scandal and being a balance of probabilities **** which is in violation of the conduct policy?

[///mcompact]

38 minutes ago, Shady Slim said:

as far as i know (and i could be wrong) the nfl isn't suspending him for being a convicted beyond reasonable doubt woman beater are they?

isn't it more along the lines of the damage to the nfl brand from the entire scandal and being a balance of probabilities **** which is in violation of the conduct policy?

https://usatcowboyswire.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/ezekiel-elliott-discipline-letter_8-11-17.pdf

You can skip over the first 2 pages and start with page 3 under "findings".  In so many words, they said that every thing that Ms. Thompson accused Elliott of, was substantiated through their independent "investigation".    That didn't read like, "well..we don't know if you did it, but it sounds like you did and therefore you're hurting our brand. Bam! 6 games."

This letter wasn't about Conduct detrimental to the league. It was pages of "Our evidence proves, without a doubt, that you beat her on separate incidences".  Maybe I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I can't take that letter to read anything other than the NFL saying Zeke's a "women beater". 

[jrry32]

1 hour ago, mse326 said:

1. What's the non speculative harm to the player in not being able to play

I addressed this previously, and I quoted the Judge's opinion reinforcing my view. It's on the last page. He actually quoted multiple cases coming to the same conclusion.

Quote

2. Do you really think he has a likelihood of winning ont he merits? If not do you really not think that court's almost universally deny injunctions when that's not met?

Yes, I think so for the reasons that Judge Mazzant stated. This was a fundamentally unfair hearing. You can overturn arbitration decisions for that reason. It's a narrow exception, but the facts here represent a situation where it is arguably in play. 

Quote

3. Do you really see an appellate court requiring cross examination saying it's fundamentally unfair not to? Do you not see how that would effect things like college sexual assault hearings?

Nope. But that's not what was required here. The NFL refused to turn over material evidence, and the arbitrator refused to rectify that by allowing Elliott's legal team to question material witnesses. That reeks of a fundamentally unfair process. The issue here isn't just that Elliott's legal team was denied the opportunity to question witnesses. The bigger issue was that the NFL concealed material evidence and the questioning of those witnesses was necessary to cure the NFL's malfeasance.

Again, another court may disagree, but I felt Judge Mazzant's reasoning and legal analysis were sound. I think the Fifth Circuit did as well, which is why they reversed on procedural grounds.

Quote

4. How was the suit not filed too early?

I think it was arguable for the reasons that Judge Mazzant articulated. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, but I didn't consider it to be a clear and easy issue to decide.

[jrry32]

41 minutes ago, Shady Slim said:

as far as i know (and i could be wrong) the nfl isn't suspending him for being a convicted beyond reasonable doubt woman beater are they?

isn't it more along the lines of the damage to the nfl brand from the entire scandal and being a balance of probabilities **** which is in violation of the conduct policy?

This is basically true.

[mse326]

4 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

1 hour ago, mse326 said:

1. What's the non speculative harm to the player in not being able to play

I addressed this previously, and I quoted the Judge's opinion reinforcing my view. It's on the last page. He actually quoted multiple cases coming to the same conclusion.

I won't rehash the others since I already explained why I thought they were wrong.

In this one all that was stated was a vague assertion of the uniqueness of bing a professional athlete (which itself is unsporrted) and citiations to district court opinions. Appellate Courts will be far more loathe to make that decision. Plus the fact that the opinion in that single sentece mentions that short period to help the TEAM tells me he isn't looking at it the right way. The team is irrelevant. I agree the team is irreperably harmed, but that has no bearing on on a suit by the player.

District Courts, in general in my opinion, are too quick to assert irreperable harm. Appellate Courts are far more cautious.

[jrry32]

Just now, mse326 said:

I won't rehash the others since I already explained why I thought they were wrong.

In this one all that was stated was a vague assertion of the uniqueness of bing a professional athlete (which itself is unsporrted) and citiations to district court opinions. Appellate Courts will be far more loathe to make that decision. Plus the fact that the opinion in that single sentece mentions that short period to help the TEAM tells me he isn't looking at it the right way. The team is irrelevant. I agree the team is irreperably harmed, but that has no bearing on on a suit by the player.

District Courts, in general in my opinion, are too quick to assert irreperable harm. Appellate Courts are far more cautious.

The uniqueness of being a professional athlete is actually discussed in at least two of the cases he cited. The team isn't irrelevant. Are you honestly trying to tell me that athletes give no craps about winning, the playoffs, Super Bowls, etc.?

Can you show me a case of a court finding that an improper suspension of an athlete would not qualify as irreparable harm? Because there are at least five cases holding the opposite.

[raiderrocker18]

1. I think the irreparable harm is pretty clear. It's been elaborated on the previous page

2. Irreparable harm is the very basis for the existence of injunctions and TRO's in the first place. That is the entire rational behind them. Granted, courts don't want to hand them out willy nilly which is why they've added other elements, but irreparable harm is the "soul" of injunctive relief. 

[TXsteeler]

This whole situation is a joke that makes our court systems and the NFL look incredibly bad.

I don't see why they don't fire Roger Goodell for this stuff. His policies on preventing women beaters and stuff are terrible and have so far only punished people who were never convicted of anything. They look doubly bad for the bad players slipping through the cracks, and innocent players being punished for no reason other than to try and make up for their previous problems.

Everybody want's to talk about kneeling bringing down ratings but between the Brady situation and the Zeke situation now, I find it hard to justify my support for this league any longer.

[Louis Friend]

45 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

This whole situation is a joke that makes our court systems and the NFL look incredibly bad.

I don't see why they don't fire Roger Goodell for this stuff. His policies on preventing women beaters and stuff are terrible and have so far only punished people who were never convicted of anything. They look doubly bad for the bad players slipping through the cracks, and innocent players being punished for no reason other than to try and make up for their previous problems.

Everybody want's to talk about kneeling bringing down ratings but between the Brady situation and the Zeke situation now, I find it hard to justify my support for this league any longer.

Roger Goodell works for NFL owners. These are not "His policies", they are the policies agreed to between the owners and the NFLPA. The issue isn't Goodell, the issue is casual fans/media not understanding what his role actually is and that despite being the figure head of the league, he is not a dictator with absolute power. 

[mse326]

16 hours ago, jrry32 said:

The uniqueness of being a professional athlete is actually discussed in at least two of the cases he cited. The team isn't irrelevant. Are you honestly trying to tell me that athletes give no craps about winning, the playoffs, Super Bowls, etc.?

Can you show me a case of a court finding that an improper suspension of an athlete would not qualify as irreparable harm? Because there are at least five cases holding the opposite.

No. I'm saying that that I don't think that is legally relevant. That isn't really a harm to the player.

And as much as some discussion on uniqueness has occured I don't think it holds water. The fact that they want to play and most workers don't want to work, which is ultimately what it boils down to, isn't enough to make it a sui generis case to me.

Again every one of those cases are district court opinions. I have serious doubts that an appeals court would because they know what would follow. But here is a post that discusses some regading suspension in intercollegiate play. Given that the only difference from the players perspective between that and the pros is the money that is easilly redressable. 
http://www.hackneypublications.com/lihsa/issues/2009/LIHSA-2009-July-August.php#a6

[jrry32]

2 hours ago, mse326 said:

No. I'm saying that that I don't think that is legally relevant. That isn't really a harm to the player.

And as much as some discussion on uniqueness has occured I don't think it holds water. The fact that they want to play and most workers don't want to work, which is ultimately what it boils down to, isn't enough to make it a sui generis case to me.

Again every one of those cases are district court opinions. I have serious doubts that an appeals court would because they know what would follow. But here is a post that discusses some regading suspension in intercollegiate play. Given that the only difference from the players perspective between that and the pros is the money that is easilly redressable. 
http://www.hackneypublications.com/lihsa/issues/2009/LIHSA-2009-July-August.php#a6

It's absolutely legally relevant. If cutting down trees results in irreparable harm, I'm not sure how you can argue losing an opportunity to win games, make the playoffs, and make a Super Bowl in a limited career can't be irreparable harm.

But I'll give you credit in that you did offer cases supporting your side. I guess we'll see what happens.

[mse326]

2 hours ago, jrry32 said:

It's absolutely legally relevant. If cutting down trees results in irreparable harm, I'm not sure how you can argue losing an opportunity to win games, make the playoffs, and make a Super Bowl in a limited career can't be irreparable harm.

But I'll give you credit in that you did offer cases supporting your side. I guess we'll see what happens.

I almost think of it in terms of contract law in this way. The teams are paying the players to play. The players play to attain money. Since a contract needs consideration on both sides legally playing needs to be a "burden" on the players. If it is is a benefit, such that saying they can't play is considered harm, Then what is the consideration the player gives in the contract?

Now I know since consideration only needs to be present rather than equal they could claim the requirement that they show up for practice and keep in shape is the consideration, but common sense, not to mention NFLPA statements and player statements in contract situations, make it a hard sell to say that they don't view playing as the burden/consideration in the contract.

EDIT: And for you tree analogy it is irreparable harm to the environment/ecosystem of the area  and groups that sue are standing in for that, not themselves. In this situation the team has irreparable harm, I never argued otherwise, but I don't think it should be considered a harm to the players.