Andrew Brandt: Players motion for Summary Judgement Today..

[DaBruinz]

Adbrandt:

Players motion for summary judgement today, same themes: lockout illegal, breaches of 2011 player contracts, etc, Procedural, due today??



HUH?? Procedural for where? I thought that the lockout was already ruled legal by the 8th Circuit Court?

 

[supafly]

Re: Andrew Brandy: Players motion for Summary Judgement Today..

Adbrandt:

Players motion for summary judgement today, same themes: lockout illegal, breaches of 2011 player contracts, etc, Procedural, due today??



HUH?? Procedural for where? I thought that the lockout was already ruled legal by the 8th Circuit Court?

A little country we refer to as the "United States"

No, seriously...their supposed reasoning is based on the Sherman Act, which I believe goes all the way back to the late 1890's--early 1900's.

Just some more 'throw something at the wall & see if it sticks' logic, that's all.

Twitter

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Andrew Brandy: Players motion for Summary Judgement Today..

A little country we refer to as the "United States"

No, seriously...their supposed reasoning is based on the Sherman Act, which I believe goes all the way back to the late 1890's--early 1900's.

Just some more 'throw something at the wall & see if it sticks' logic, that's all.

Twitter

The where was for WHICH Court, not for The United States.. The lockout has already been ruled LEGAL by the 8th Circuit Court, so I don't see how a Summary Judgement in a lower court could be made that said that the Lockout was illegal. Something doesn't make sense..

 

[Sfpat]

Re: Andrew Brandy: Players motion for Summary Judgement Today..

Doesn't seem like the players are acting like "partners" to get this issue resolved and get back on the field. I'd hate to have them as my "partner"

 

[supafly]

Re: Andrew Brandy: Players motion for Summary Judgement Today..

The where was for WHICH Court, not for The United States.. The lockout has already been ruled LEGAL by the 8th Circuit Court, so I don't see how a Summary Judgement in a lower court could be made that said that the Lockout was illegal. Something doesn't make sense..

Yeah, no doubt something doesn't make much sense.

I'm sure we'll hear more about it.

 

[supafly]

Re: Andrew Brandy: Players motion for Summary Judgement Today..

The where was for WHICH Court, not for The United States.. The lockout has already been ruled LEGAL by the 8th Circuit Court, so I don't see how a Summary Judgement in a lower court could be made that said that the Lockout was illegal. Something doesn't make sense..

It's a summary judgement to the 7th court of appeals. This is why I was confused with the Sherman Anti-trust Act lingo. It is just another district.

Per USAToday: NFLPA official: ‘We’re gonna push through and try and finish’ - Arizona Sports News from USA Today

"Also Monday, Atallah confirmed that attorneys for plaintiffs in Brady et al v. NFL union filed a motion to the 7th Circuit Circuit of Appeals for a summary judgment. He classified the filing, with a Monday deadline, as a strictly procedural matter that can be rescinded with a settlement.

“We have an obligation and the class counsel has an obligation to protect members of the class so we had the move forward with that filing,” he said. “Obviously, the ultimate goal for everybody is a global settlement. Assuming that happens, which we hope it does, that can be lifted at any time.”

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Re: Andrew Brandy: Players motion for Summary Judgement Today..

Expected legal housekeeping with the equally probable possibility of a 99yd game winning TD with the playclock at zero.

 

[spacecrime]

Adbrandt:

Players motion for summary judgement today, same themes: lockout illegal, breaches of 2011 player contracts, etc, Procedural, due today??



HUH?? Procedural for where? I thought that the lockout was already ruled legal by the 8th Circuit Court?

Got a link?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

This filing is so off the radar most NFL sites aren't even bothering to report it. It's just legal housekeeping. According to Yahoo the motion was filed in Minnesota and it relates to the hearing scheduled for August 29 in front of Judge Nelson. Had they not filed it now they would not have been able to file it if the whole deal fell apart because yesterday was the deadline for motions to be considered at that hearing...which will never happen if a new CBA is ratified this week...or any time before August 29. Which is why even when it flashed across twitter yesterday it was immediately acknowledged as just procedural.

 

[DaBruinz]

Got a link?

It was on Twitter..

 

[DaBruinz]

This filing is so off the radar most NFL sites aren't even bothering to report it. It's just legal housekeeping. According to Yahoo the motion was filed in Minnesota and it relates to the hearing scheduled for August 29 in front of Judge Nelson. Had they not filed it now they would not have been able to file it if the whole deal fell apart because yesterday was the deadline for motions to be considered at that hearing...which will never happen if a new CBA is ratified this week...or any time before August 29. Which is why even when it flashed across twitter yesterday it was immediately acknowledged as just procedural.

Thanks Mo... Much appreciated.