Kai
04-27-2011, 08:40 PM
Judge denies league request for stay of lockout lift
MINNEAPOLIS -- The federal judge who lifted the NFL lockout has denied the league's request to put her ruling on hold.
U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson wrote late Wednesday that the NFL "has not met its burden for a stay pending appeal, expedited or otherwise."
The league wanted Nelson to keep the lockout in place while it appeals her ruling, arguing that starting free agency and other football activities before there's clarity on the status of this case could be damaging to the league's competitive balance and general operations.
Players wrote to the judge earlier Wednesday to argue against the league's request for a stay, contending that a continuation of the lockout harms the NFL as much as it does the players.
Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81f861c6/article/judge-denies-league-request-for-stay-of-lockout-lift?module=breaking_news
As discussed above, the Supreme Court’s clearly reiterated ruling that a stay applicant must make “‘a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits,’” casts a substantial doubt on the applicability of the more lenient standard that the NFL advocates, namely, that this case raises several "substantial and novel legal questions” regarding jurisdiction and “the contours of the nonstatutory labor exemption,” and that it is “not wholly without doubt” that the Eighth Circuit will disagree with this Court’s Order. The NFL has not met its burden of proof.
The NFL’s failure in this regard is premised in large part on its mis-understanding or mis-characterization of what this Court decided. Or perhaps more accurately, what this Court did not decide. This is evident in the NFL’s framing of the purported issues on appeal, particularly its claim that this Court misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Pro-Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (1996). But the Eighth Circuit will not be addressing whether this court erred in finding that the lockout was sufficiently distant in time and in circumstances from the collective bargaining process, or in making that finding without any input from the NLRB, as was held in Brown, 518 U.S. at 250 (ruling that the nonstatutory labor exemption prevents actions of the NFL from being subjected to antitrust scrutiny unless such actions are “sufficiently distant in time and in circumstances” from the collective bargaining process, a test that should not be deemed satisfied without the “detailed views” of the NLRB).
The Eighth Circuit will not be addressing that issue because this Court did not decide that issue. As this Court explained at length, in Brown the Supreme Court addressed the issue of a negotiating impasse, the situation where a union and the employer reach a pause, that usually proves temporary, during the collective bargaining negotiations. This Court carefully explained that no such question was at issue here because the NFLPA disclaimed its status as the Players’ negotiating agent just prior to the expiration of the CBA and ceased all union functions on behalf of the Players. This Court thus decided the issue that was in fact before it – whether the NFLPA’s disclaimer was valid and effective, an issue that was neither novel nor difficult in light of the NLRB’s clear and consistent standard governing such disclaimers, and to which the NLRB has adhered for decades.
The NFL also contends that this Court decided “substantial and novel legal questions” related to “the outer boundaries of the nonstatutory labor exemption to the antitrust laws.” This Court does not disagree that the exemption issue is “substantial,” but this Court did not reach the question of whether the exemption protects mandatory terms of collective bargaining outside of the collective bargaining framework. Rather, the Court found that the lockout (1) is not a mandatory term, and therefore not subject to the exemption; and (2) has no role outside of collective bargaining.
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.
Although the Brady Plaintiffs could have sought more expansive preliminary injunctive relief beyond Count I, they did not. This Court limited its ruling to the issue before it – whether the Brady Plaintiff’s were entitled to preliminary relief enjoining the lockout. Thus, the NFL’s suggestion that the Eighth Circuit apply a de novo standard of review to the issue of “the applicability of the nonstatutory labor exemption”, is not so much wrong as it is presently irrelevant. There is little point in debating the appropriate standard of review of a “ruling” that did not occur, does not exist, and, therefore, will not be reviewed on appeal.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54100387/Brady-v-NFL-Stay-Denied
:lol Nelson laying the smackdown on the NFL.
MINNEAPOLIS -- The federal judge who lifted the NFL lockout has denied the league's request to put her ruling on hold.
U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson wrote late Wednesday that the NFL "has not met its burden for a stay pending appeal, expedited or otherwise."
The league wanted Nelson to keep the lockout in place while it appeals her ruling, arguing that starting free agency and other football activities before there's clarity on the status of this case could be damaging to the league's competitive balance and general operations.
Players wrote to the judge earlier Wednesday to argue against the league's request for a stay, contending that a continuation of the lockout harms the NFL as much as it does the players.
Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81f861c6/article/judge-denies-league-request-for-stay-of-lockout-lift?module=breaking_news
As discussed above, the Supreme Court’s clearly reiterated ruling that a stay applicant must make “‘a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits,’” casts a substantial doubt on the applicability of the more lenient standard that the NFL advocates, namely, that this case raises several "substantial and novel legal questions” regarding jurisdiction and “the contours of the nonstatutory labor exemption,” and that it is “not wholly without doubt” that the Eighth Circuit will disagree with this Court’s Order. The NFL has not met its burden of proof.
The NFL’s failure in this regard is premised in large part on its mis-understanding or mis-characterization of what this Court decided. Or perhaps more accurately, what this Court did not decide. This is evident in the NFL’s framing of the purported issues on appeal, particularly its claim that this Court misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Pro-Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (1996). But the Eighth Circuit will not be addressing whether this court erred in finding that the lockout was sufficiently distant in time and in circumstances from the collective bargaining process, or in making that finding without any input from the NLRB, as was held in Brown, 518 U.S. at 250 (ruling that the nonstatutory labor exemption prevents actions of the NFL from being subjected to antitrust scrutiny unless such actions are “sufficiently distant in time and in circumstances” from the collective bargaining process, a test that should not be deemed satisfied without the “detailed views” of the NLRB).
The Eighth Circuit will not be addressing that issue because this Court did not decide that issue. As this Court explained at length, in Brown the Supreme Court addressed the issue of a negotiating impasse, the situation where a union and the employer reach a pause, that usually proves temporary, during the collective bargaining negotiations. This Court carefully explained that no such question was at issue here because the NFLPA disclaimed its status as the Players’ negotiating agent just prior to the expiration of the CBA and ceased all union functions on behalf of the Players. This Court thus decided the issue that was in fact before it – whether the NFLPA’s disclaimer was valid and effective, an issue that was neither novel nor difficult in light of the NLRB’s clear and consistent standard governing such disclaimers, and to which the NLRB has adhered for decades.
The NFL also contends that this Court decided “substantial and novel legal questions” related to “the outer boundaries of the nonstatutory labor exemption to the antitrust laws.” This Court does not disagree that the exemption issue is “substantial,” but this Court did not reach the question of whether the exemption protects mandatory terms of collective bargaining outside of the collective bargaining framework. Rather, the Court found that the lockout (1) is not a mandatory term, and therefore not subject to the exemption; and (2) has no role outside of collective bargaining.
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.
Although the Brady Plaintiffs could have sought more expansive preliminary injunctive relief beyond Count I, they did not. This Court limited its ruling to the issue before it – whether the Brady Plaintiff’s were entitled to preliminary relief enjoining the lockout. Thus, the NFL’s suggestion that the Eighth Circuit apply a de novo standard of review to the issue of “the applicability of the nonstatutory labor exemption”, is not so much wrong as it is presently irrelevant. There is little point in debating the appropriate standard of review of a “ruling” that did not occur, does not exist, and, therefore, will not be reviewed on appeal.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54100387/Brady-v-NFL-Stay-Denied
:lol Nelson laying the smackdown on the NFL.