NFL Reopens Investigation Into Giants' Josh Brown Sources: NBA, NBPA On Verge Of New CBA CBS/NFL Net See Sharp Drop For "TNF" Manfred Expects Domestic Violence Policy To Evolve Roger Goodell Addresses Dip In NFL Ratings MillerCoors Brings Back '80s Madden Ad MLB To Get New Midtown Manhattan HQ Google OTT May Have CBS' NFL Games PGA Tour Implements New Scheduling Rule Tannehill Echoes Belichick On Microsoft Tablet
SBD/March 14, 2011/Leagues and Governing Bodies
NFL Lockout Watch, Day 3: Players File Lawsuit Against League
Published March 14, 2011
WANT MORE GREAT STORIES LIKE THIS?
CLICK ON ONE OF THESE BUTTONS
I'LL BE THE JUDGE OF THAT: Susan Nelson today became the third judge to be assigned the NFLPA’s antitrust lawsuit, though it is possible by the end of today a fourth, and the one coveted by the former union, David Doty, could get the case. Two judges recused themselves because of possible conflicts of interest, and Nelson was assigned this morning. Nelson had until December overseen the case brought by former NFLer Fred Dryer against NFL Films, alleging misuse of his and other former players identities. She stepped aside from that case after a promotion. According to legal experts in Minnesota who follow the federal court system, the decision on whether Doty will be linked to this case will be made between Doty and Nelson. The NFLPA, in seeking an injunction, did list Doty's Reggie White case as "related." That identification was a signal that the union wants Doty on the new case. But that designation typically triggers a discussion between the two judges on the two related matters. In this instance, Doty and Nelson could be expected to discuss who should get the new Brady case. Those who know Doty suspect he would like to stay on the case. But there is another issue: Barbara Berens, who is the lead local counsel for the union, was Doty's clerk during the White case. Her appearance before Doty could be viewed as a red flag by NFL lawyers, who could be expected to seek Doty's removal. A preliminary injunction hearing was scheduled for April 6 before Nelson. The NFL’s response is due March 21 and the NFLPA’s reply March 28. It is unclear if the scheduling of the hearing means that the case will stay with Nelson (Kaplan & Weiner, SportsBusiness Journal). Meanwhile, the AP noted the players will "meet in Marco Island, Fla., beginning Wednesday, an annual convention that has taken place in Maui most years." They will "plot strategy for the next few months, hopeful the request for a preliminary injunction ... will stop the lockout" (AP, 3/13).
A WELL THOUGHT-OUT SUIT: In N.Y., Ralph Vacchiano reported Umenyiora's inclusion in the suit was a "well-kept secret." A source said that even Umenyiora "didn't know for sure he'd be part of the suit until just days before." The source said, "The union picked the guys. And every one of them was picked for a reason." A source familiar with Umenyiora's inclusion in the suit said that he was added as "one of the four plaintiffs with current NFL contracts because of the bonus-heavy structure of his six-year, $41 million deal, which at the time was the largest ever given to a player in his third NFL season" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 3/13). In K.C., Sam Mellinger wrote, "Putting well-liked stars like Peyton Manning and Drew Brees on a lawsuit that will officially be called 'Brady vs. the NFL' is a brilliant PR move" (KANSASCITY.com, 3/12).
BEEFING UP THEIR ROSTERS: In Boston, Greg Bedard reports the NFL has "retained legal heavyweights David Boies and Paul Clement to join longtime outside counsel Gregg Levy in defending the league against the antitrust case filed Friday by the NFLPA." Boies is "most well known for representing Al Gore in the disputed 2000 presidential election." The players are "represented locally in Minnesota by the firms of Berens & Miller and Briggs and Morgan." The players also will continue to be represented by Jim Quinn and Jeffrey Kessler, among others (BOSTON GLOBE, 3/13). The N.Y. POST's Hubbuch noted the "willingness to spend huge money on a heavyweight such as Boies indicates just how desperate the NFL is to end its string of antitrust losses (at least five since 1957) unless the owners decide to negotiate an out-of-court settlement that would result in a new CBA." The players "countered with their own impressive legal move" in hiring Berens (N.Y. POST, 3/13).
A LOOK DOWN THE FIELD: In DC, Maske & Shipley cited legal experts as saying that the NFL players' decision to dissolve their union "leaves both labor and management vulnerable to a game-changing ruling on the labor stalemate from an outside arbiter -- either a federal court or the National Labor Relations Board." Barry Univ. law school professor Marc Edelman: "What happens in the next few weeks will determine whether the ball is on the NFL players’ side of the field, or whether they are backed in their own end zone." Maske & Shipley noted if the NLRB "agrees with the owners that the decertification is a sham, conducted simply to gain bargaining advantage, the players could be forced to return to the table with their suit jeopardized and legal strategy in shambles." The owners "already have filed a complaint with the NLRB alleging just that, and several experts said they seem to have a compelling case." But if decertification is "upheld by the NLRB, the players may gain a sudden edge." Maske & Shipley noted "history shows the owners likely will face an uphill battle as the players press forward with their attempt to win a preliminary injunction to lift the owners’ lockout" (WASHINGTON POST, 3/13).
HE'S ON YOUR SIDE? In N.Y., Richard Sandomir notes for NFL players, "federal court in Minneapolis is a legal nirvana." Over "nearly 40 years, cases filed there by players and their union have found favor in legal rulings by United States district court judges." And on Friday, when the NFLPA decertified, "the Minneapolis court once again became the legal theater for football, this time in a particularly tense impasse" (N.Y. TIMES, 3/13). The N.Y. POST's Hubbuch wrote under the header, "NFL Should Fear Tackling Doty In Court." Doty invokes "both fear and disgust from the owners because of his repeated decisions in favor of the players dating to the granting of free agency in 1993 after the union decertified the first time." The owners "obviously can appeal any decisions by Doty's court, but it is little surprise that they have made removing him from hearing any future league-related cases a prime provision of the next labor agreement (N.Y. POST, 3/12). SI.com's Don Banks wrote during CBA negotiations the past few weeks, "it's clear the players didn't have to bend over backward." Banks: "Or even a little. Because they knew with Doty in their corner, they could play hardball with the league -- and have a good chance of winning" (SI.com, 3/12).