Berman supposedly bound by the Peterson case?

• Certain of the issues in this case have been adjudicated by a court in the 8th District.
• That order has not been stayed, even though it is being appealed.
• Hence, the other court's adjudication of those issues is, at this time, binding on Berman.

raduray said:

INAL, but I believe that out of district rulings are persuasive, but not binding.

Click to expand...

Fencer said:

There's one subject on which I'd appreciate our local attorneys chiming in.

Kessler makes an argument to the effect of:

• Certain of the issues in this case have been adjudicated by a court in the 8th District.
• That order has not been stayed, even though it is being appealed.
• Hence, the other court's adjudication of those issues is, at this time, binding on Berman.

Is that correct?

Click to expand...

Fencer said:

IANAL either, but I'm sure you're right in general. Even so, Kessler made a very specific argument that seemed to assert binding-ness in some particular area.

Click to expand...

1. IANAL, but below is what Kessler says. My interpretation is that he's saying that a decision between two parties basically becomes law, even during the appeal, and even in another court. Essentially my take is when Peterson was ruled it effectively became part of the CBA. It may get removed later, but it was the effective law between the NFL and NFLPA during the supposed incident.
   
   Therefore the NFL argument that they don't really have to apply notice beyond integrity of the game isn't sufficient because as far as Brady knows that was the law during the violation. You can't hold that Brady should have known integrity of the game was sufficient notice at the time of the supposed violation, when a federal judge ruled on that very issue between those very parties.
   
   So even if the NFL is ultimately right about the arbiters power in judge Berman's eyes, Brady should win based on that there's no way he could know how Berman would see it, only how Doty would see it.
   
   That's my take of his argument, I may be wrong.
   
   
   
   

   KESSLER: The significance of Peterson -- and then I would like to stop because I'm sure your Honor has other questions -- but, the significance of Peterson and this is unlike the other cases, it is conclusive here.
   
   Mr. Nash alluded to the fact that it is on appeal to the Eighth Circuit but, as your Honor knows in the Second Circuit and in the Eighth Circuit, I think in every circuit, a decision that establishes the same parties has issue preclusive effect during an appeal. They did not seek a stay of the Peterson decision. In fact, they could have sought a stay of the Peterson decision, they did not. So, right now, at the time of Brady, Commissioner Goodell was legally precluded from denying that he had to apply this notice and the NFL is legally precluded from doing so and yet Peterson is not even discussed by Commissioner Goodell as in his decision except in a footnote saying that had to do with domestic violence and I don't have to discuss that. That, your Honor, is a clear violation of the essence of the CBA, the law of the shop, and it is manifest disregard of the law which the Second Circuit still applies.

   Click to expand...

QuantumMechanic said:

It is true that trial court rulings (even in-circuit) are not precedential and out-of-circuit rulings are not precedential.

However, Berman is bound by things like collateral estoppel and res judicata. For example, neither the NFL nor NFLPA can relitigate something they've already litigated against each other -- if the NFL and NFLPA battled and a court (anywhere) said "Goodell cannot use the Foobar Clause to suspend a player", then in future NFL/NFLPA litigation the NFL will not be allowed to argue that Goodell can use the Foobar Clause to suspend a player. That is simply off the table.

So if Berman concludes that the NFL is trying to argue something it already argued and lost to the NFLPA on, Berman has to follow what the other court has decided, even if it's out-of-circuit and even if it's a mere trial court.

Click to expand...

raduray said:

INAL, but I believe that out of district rulings are persuasive, but not binding.

Click to expand...

QuantumMechanic said:

It is true that trial court rulings (even in-circuit) are not precedential and out-of-circuit rulings are not precedential.

However, Berman is bound by things like collateral estoppel and res judicata. For example, neither the NFL nor NFLPA can relitigate something they've already litigated against each other -- if the NFL and NFLPA battled and a court (anywhere) said "Goodell cannot use the Foobar Clause to suspend a player", then in future NFL/NFLPA litigation the NFL will not be allowed to argue that Goodell can use the Foobar Clause to suspend a player. That is simply off the table.

So if Berman concludes that the NFL is trying to argue something it already argued and lost to the NFLPA on, Berman has to follow what the other court has decided, even if it's out-of-circuit and even if it's a mere trial court.

Click to expand...

Bobsyouruncle said:

1. IANAL, but below is what Kessler says. My interpretation is that he's saying that a decision between two parties basically becomes law, even during the appeal, and even in another court. Essentially my take is when Peterson was ruled it effectively became part of the CBA. It may get removed later, but it was the effective law between the NFL and NFLPA during the supposed incident.
   
   Therefore the NFL argument that they don't really have to apply notice beyond integrity of the game isn't sufficient because as far as Brady knows that was the law during the violation. You can't hold that Brady should have known integrity of the game was sufficient notice at the time of the supposed violation, when a federal judge ruled on that very issue between those very parties.
   
   So even if the NFL is ultimately right about the arbiters power in judge Berman's eyes, Brady should win based on that there's no way he could know how Berman would see it, only how Doty would see it.
   
   That's my take of his argument, I may be wrong.
   
   
   

Click to expand...

Joker said:

I Am Not A Lawyer = IANAL

Click to expand...

Joker said:

I Am Not A Lawyer = IANAL

Click to expand...

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

Not to be confused with "I am anal" which suggests you probably are a lawyer.

Click to expand...

GrogansArmy said:

Its a sad day when you have to remind everyone that you are NOT a lawyer.

Click to expand...

GrogansArmy said:

Its a sad day when you have to remind everyone that you are NOT a lawyer.

Click to expand...