Judge lifts lockout, doesn't grant stay

[Travis34]

Judge Nelson just denied the motion for a stay. I assume now the league will go to the 8th circuit as a last ditch hope, though it sounds like free agency is about to kick off.

Woohoo!

 

[flynryan15]

This is where the owners tuck their tale between their legs and get a deal done.

 

[Casas9425]

Adam Schefter is saying it will be very hard for the owners to win appeal in the 8th circuit, Judge Nelson's new 20 page report hammers the league even more.

 

[Locke]

Adam Schefter is saying it will be very hard for the owners to win appeal in the 8th circuit, Judge Nelson's new 20 page report hammers the league even more.

All they had to do was open their books. Now look what's happening...

 

[Fintastic2124]

Jeez....I really thought the players would be the underdogs in all of this. Shows what I know...

 

[chrisbaucom]

All they had to do was open their books. Now look what's happening...

I'm beginning to think they didn't want to open their books because the owners didn't want other owners seeing what was in their financials, not the players.

 

[ciscoholgate]

I'm beginning to think they didn't want to open their books because the owners didn't want other owners seeing what was in their financials, not the players.

This is what I believe too.

 

[CANDolphan]

This is where the owners tuck their tale between their legs and get a deal done.

She quotes the players' declaration for over two pages straight in this order. They gave her a roadmap for defeating the stay, and she basically said "thank you good sirs I do think this will come in handy."

She then specifically calls out the NFL for not addressing her previous order which layed out the players' irreparable harm, and castigates them for repeating the mantra "treble damages will compensate the players" after she specifically tore that argument apart.

quote:

Any such argument fails to acknowledge this Court’s ruling. The lockout plainly raises issues of harm beyond those that are compensable by damages. This Court addressed, at substantial length, the irreparable injuries that the Players are presently incurring, and have been incurring, since the League locked them out on March 12, 2011. This Court came to that conclusion based on the extensive affidavit evidence submitted by the Brady Plaintiffs. The NFL offered little, if any, evidence to directly rebut the Players’ affidavits, either in response to the motion for a preliminary injunction, or here. Moreover, the NFL’s argument assumes the Eighth Circuit will rule before the season begins. In the absence of a motion seeking an expedited appeal, that seems unlikely.​

She then smacks them around for bringing up legal issues that she specifically did not rule on, and basically laughs off their assertions that the 8th circuit will review de novo.

quote:

The NFL has, in this Court’s considered judgment, little chance of success on the merits on this appeal on that issue because this Court did not decide that issue – namely, whether the nonstatutory labor exemption continues to insulate the League, under the factual circumstances in effect since March 11, 2011, with respect to negotiations or agreements regarding the mandatory terms of collective bargaining, that is, the substantive terms and conditions of employment.​

She then calls them out for their "public interest" argument:

quote:

Finally, the NFL contends that the public interest in encouraging the collective bargaining process would be well-served by issuing a stay pending expedited appellate review. However, there is no collective bargaining process to be served here, because the Players believe they have effectively disclaimed the Union as their collective bargainingagent and will not now engage in collective bargaining. The League’s public interestargument is unpersuasive. The NFL voluntarily opted out of the then-applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) in May 2008, two years before its expiration. Since that time, during the parties’ failed attempts to negotiate a new CBA, the NFL warned the Players that they might utilize a lockout as a means to achieve a favorable agreement. White v. NFL, CV 4-92-906 (DSD), 2011 WL 707319, *1 (D. Minn. Mar. 1,2011). The NFL has had ample opportunity to serve and promote the public interest in encouraging the collective bargaining process in the past, but in this present context, there is no such process to encourage. As this Court suggested in its Order, there is no public interest in permitting the NFL to continue to enjoy the benefits and protections of labor law–antitrust immunity and the right to lock out the Players–without the Players beingable to enjoy their corresponding rights of collective bargaining and the right to strike.

In contrast stands the public interest in the enforcement of the Sherman Act and the public interest in a professional football season. These are actual, “live” interests, and they favor the denial of a stay of this Court’s Order.​

I think one of the most intersting facts from this opinion is that the NFL hadn't filed any papers to request expidited review before she issued the order. She basically said "since you haven't done that, it might be a long time before you get your appeal heard, which defeats any arguments you make about this being over in a few weeks." I don't know if this was an oversight or conscious choice by the NFL, but I found it surprising.



Overall, she dismissed their arguments fairly strongly, admonished them for not responding to her previous order and instead repeating the same arguments she already rejected, and basically questioned whether they understood the appellate process or what they would need to do to win an appeal.

I think players' counsel, whose briefs were obvious influences if not downright first drafts for these final orders, are drinking tonight.

 

[flynryan15]

She quotes the players' declaration for over two pages straight in this order. They gave her a roadmap for defeating the stay, and she basically said "thank you good sirs I do think this will come in handy."

She then specifically calls out the NFL for not addressing her previous order which layed out the players' irreparable harm, and castigates them for repeating the mantra "treble damages will compensate the players" after she specifically tore that argument apart.

quote:

Any such argument fails to acknowledge this Court’s ruling. The lockout plainly raises issues of harm beyond those that are compensable by damages. This Court addressed, at substantial length, the irreparable injuries that the Players are presently incurring, and have been incurring, since the League locked them out on March 12, 2011. This Court came to that conclusion based on the extensive affidavit evidence submitted by the Brady Plaintiffs. The NFL offered little, if any, evidence to directly rebut the Players’ affidavits, either in response to the motion for a preliminary injunction, or here. Moreover, the NFL’s argument assumes the Eighth Circuit will rule before the season begins. In the absence of a motion seeking an expedited appeal, that seems unlikely.​

She then smacks them around for bringing up legal issues that she specifically did not rule on, and basically laughs off their assertions that the 8th circuit will review de novo.

quote:

The NFL has, in this Court’s considered judgment, little chance of success on the merits on this appeal on that issue because this Court did not decide that issue – namely, whether the nonstatutory labor exemption continues to insulate the League, under the factual circumstances in effect since March 11, 2011, with respect to negotiations or agreements regarding the mandatory terms of collective bargaining, that is, the substantive terms and conditions of employment.​

She then calls them out for their "public interest" argument:

quote:

Finally, the NFL contends that the public interest in encouraging the collective bargaining process would be well-served by issuing a stay pending expedited appellate review. However, there is no collective bargaining process to be served here, because the Players believe they have effectively disclaimed the Union as their collective bargainingagent and will not now engage in collective bargaining. The League’s public interestargument is unpersuasive. The NFL voluntarily opted out of the then-applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) in May 2008, two years before its expiration. Since that time, during the parties’ failed attempts to negotiate a new CBA, the NFL warned the Players that they might utilize a lockout as a means to achieve a favorable agreement. White v. NFL, CV 4-92-906 (DSD), 2011 WL 707319, *1 (D. Minn. Mar. 1,2011). The NFL has had ample opportunity to serve and promote the public interest in encouraging the collective bargaining process in the past, but in this present context, there is no such process to encourage. As this Court suggested in its Order, there is no public interest in permitting the NFL to continue to enjoy the benefits and protections of labor law–antitrust immunity and the right to lock out the Players–without the Players beingable to enjoy their corresponding rights of collective bargaining and the right to strike.

In contrast stands the public interest in the enforcement of the Sherman Act and the public interest in a professional football season. These are actual, “live” interests, and they favor the denial of a stay of this Court’s Order.​

I think one of the most intersting facts from this opinion is that the NFL hadn't filed any papers to request expidited review before she issued the order. She basically said "since you haven't done that, it might be a long time before you get your appeal heard, which defeats any arguments you make about this being over in a few weeks." I don't know if this was an oversight or conscious choice by the NFL, but I found it surprising.



Overall, she dismissed their arguments fairly strongly, admonished them for not responding to her previous order and instead repeating the same arguments she already rejected, and basically questioned whether they understood the appellate process or what they would need to do to win an appeal.

I think players' counsel, whose briefs were obvious influences if not downright first drafts for these final orders, are drinking tonight.

Ouch! Talk about a legal Weiner Smack! Take that Jerry ;-)

 

[Chubby]

Did anyone else see that tweet from PFT that Holgrem said they are open for business? This is huge if true... only takes 1 team to open up the flood gate.

Ross you better do the right thing here!