dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> adbrandt Andrew Brandt
> NFL desperately trying to avoid judicial oversight
> of potential CBA with Nelson overseeing
> settlement. Visions of the wrath of Doty.
>
this what I said in my comments, they want it out of her court and to the 8th

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She already ruled she had the right to defer
> jurisdiction orthe right to rule, and she is
> choosing to rule rather then defer. Why would we
> wait 2 weeks for a ruling on jursidiction?


judges are required to rule on jurisidction before the merits. they can't assume jurisdiction and get to the meat of the case. So she has no choice but to decide jurisdiction.

Practically speaking, this won't really delay anything on her end. Assuming she finds she has jurisdiction, she'll move on to the merits and issue a single ruling. If she decides she doesn't have jurisdiction but the NLRB does, then the case is over on her end---and off to the 8th Cir to review that jurisdictional decision. If the 8th Cir disagrees, it will send it back to her to rule on the merits---or if it agrees, it's before the NLRB.

this is going to settle, guys, I am not worried about missing any part of this season.

Whether we think it's a sham or not, how can they make them be a union if they say they don't wan't to be?

Berk, what is her main ruling gonna be on then? Jurisdiction, decertification or the validity of the lockout? Or all 3?

ok, here is my understanding of the issues before the court (based on my reading of the briefs). there is a lot of legal gobbledegook at issue in the case so read at your risk of boredom....

the issue before the judge is whether she should grant an injunction ordering the owners to halt the lockout.

before she gets to that question, there is an issue of whether she has jurisdiction to hear the case at all, or whether it should be heard at the nlrb, where there is currently a case pending that the owners filed a few months ago before the union decertified (they filed it so they could make this exact argument they are making now). this isn't my area of expertise at all, but having read the nfl's brief they are arguing there is a law (norris laguardia) which says that federal courts do not have jursidiction to issue injunctions in cases "growing out of labor disputes." So the issue is whether this is such a case. If she finds that it is then presumably she would not have jurisdiction to proceed. I think if she concludes that then the parties would have to be before the nlrb. at a minimum they would not be able to proceed in federal court.

the owners make another separate but related argument that the question of whether the decertification was valid is something that the nlrb, and not the courts, have jurisdiction to decide. basically they are saying this issue must first be decided by the nlrb. if the judge agrees she will dismiss the case and let the nlrb decide the issue.

if she disagrees with the nfl's position re either of the above, then she will rule on the main issue of the case---whether to enjoin the lockout and in effect order the league to let the players report to work, most likely under rules they would have to decide amongst themselves (she wouldn't/couldn't tell the league how to run its business). the question will turn on whether she thinks the players have a likelihood of winning their case that the nfl's actions violate antitrust laws. If she thinks it is more likely than not that they will win, and the players will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, then she'll grant the injunction and the lockout will be over (pending appeal). if not, she won't and the lockout will continue while the court case proceeds.

no matter what she decides, the losing side will take an immediate appeal to the 8th Cir, which probably will hear the case very quickly (maybe within 3-4 weeks after the dist court rules) and will rule quickly (for a court), probably in another 2-3 weeks. so unless there is an agreement between the parties, we are looking at another 2-3 months or so of hearing about court cases and injunctions.

Thanks. Sums it up for me.

Berk, If she rules she has jurisdiction, and it is not CB issue, pending appeal, is it possbile the FA window could open up, and then be closed back upon reversal of appeal. If so would the judge let that happen, or would the opening be pending the oversight from the 8th?

berk,
(norris laguardia) from what I understand this case is related to protecting labor from management, and NFL managment is trying to use it to protect itself from labor, so there isnt precedence for how the owners are actually trying to use this law in a reverse scenario, So Judge Nelson questioned that alot from what I read.