Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by KDPPatsfan85, Apr 29, 2011.
Via Twitter from Michael Silver
I guess Free Agency will have to wait!!
Also, a tweet from Albert Breer
What exactly does this mean?
Aren't there still going to be appeals and other maneuvers which nulify what this stay does?
There are two stays involved. The one that Silver is referring to would be the temporary stay, or the stay pending the hearing on a permanent stay.
The motion the players were filing would be with regards to the upcoming hearing on a permanent stay.
If this is true, I expect there was some sort of bribe or blackmail involved.
Just how does "may issue a stay" get translated into "to issue a stay"??
Albert Breer Via Twitter!!
It's still just a rumor. Silver spent the evening at a players house in AZ watching the draft and that may simply be what the player told him he's hearing... The union* may want to temper reaction/expectations among it's members by conceding a stay is likely at this juncture and it's no big deal...
And again, any ruling today will ONLY be on the temporary stay until the Court has time to hear full arguments on the lower court stay ruling sometime next week. They will then still have to rule if the stay would remain in effect for several weeks while they hear the full appeal of Nelson's ruling.
If a full stay is granted pending appeal, then you may see some real movement towards a settlement come May 16th when the two sides are expected back at mediation.
You really need to stop overreacting!! to twitter comments on rumored possibilities. That this might happen today should not be news to anyone who has remotely followed the proceedings.
1) The 8th circuit has not issued a stay.
2) The court has pending before it two motions for a stay. First, is what I'll call the "big" motion. The big motion asks for a stay (which would keep the lock out in place) until the appeal can be heard and decided. This would be roughly until mid-June.
3) The court also has pending before it what I'll call the motion for a "little" stay -- that is, a short stay while it considers whether to enter the big stay.
4) The "big" stay will not be decided until some time next week. The NFL's reply brief is not due until Monday morning. They are not going to rule until they get that brief.
5) The "short" stay could be decided any time. But it hasn't been decided yet. (At least, it had not been decided as of 20 minutes ago.) The latests things on the docket are (a) the player's response to the motion for a big stay, (b) a motion by the players to file an over-length brief (in other words, to exceed the page limit), and (c) an order by the court granting the motion to exceed the page limit.
In short, there has been no ruling on the little stay. It's hard to know what that means. It might mean the 8th Circuit doesn't plan to grant any stay. It might mean they just haven't had a chance to have 3 judges read the papers yet. It might mean that they intend to rule very quickly early next week and don't see a need to enter an interim stay in the meantime. It might mean they wanted to wait for the players' brief, which just got filed about an hour ago.
Interestingly, the order granting the motion to exceed the page limits was not signed by a judge -- it was signed by the clerk with the following on the entry line: "Ordered at the Direction of the Court." While this is pretty standard for procedural or routine orders like an order exceeding the page limit, it would have been interesting to know which judge or judges on the court is hearing the motions in the case.
Clayton is reporting that the temporary stay has been granted.
A temporary stay to wait for a decision on a stay
This stuff is just ridiculous and its why Lawyers have so much money. They are robbing people blind.
And they should never get a temporary stay until a decision is made on a stay. They have been ruled against and are looking to stop everything, thats completely against the spirit of the law.
Not surprising. It's not on the docket yet, but there's usually a 20 minute lag between when the parties get orders and when they show up on the docket.
FWIW, I'm actually in favor of the "little" stay; free agency is chaotic enough, and this gives the NFL the chance to make sure everyone knows exactly what the rules are/will be.
It will be interesting to see what reason, if any, is given for granting it.
Actually, for good reason, the law is exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting.
The heavy presumption is that courts should not be telling parties what to do until it has ruled on the merits. The trial court (Nelson) has not yet ruled on the merits. She issued a "prelimnary injunction." The word "preliminary" means it was issued before a ruling on the merits.
A preliminary injunction is known as "extraordinary relief." It is thought to be so because typically in the U.S. you're entitled to your full day in court before a court tells you what to do.
So, issuing a stay of the preliminary injunction merely maints the status quo. I know it's hard to get one's arms around the fact that the lockout is the status quo, because in layman's terms it seems extraordinary. But, as legal matter, what parties do outside court is the status quo.
They won't give a reason, I wouldn't think.
Actually -- one modification on this. The players have demanded that if a stay is issued, the NFL be required to post a $1 billion bond. This is chutzpah for a lot of reasons, but the court might address that request in its order, in which case I would think it would give reasons.
Separate names with a comma.