Skip to content

Clerk says Eighth Circuit simply may not rule on motion for stay

MootFestival-01

As we continue to wait for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to issue a ruling regarding the league’s motion to stay the order lifting the lockout until the ruling can be reviewed, the Clerk of the Court tells USA Today that there possibly will be no ruling on the pending motion.

“I don’t have any indication whether there is going to be any further ruling on the motion for a stay,” Michael Gans told Gary Mihoces.  Gans also said the motion for a stay is “still pending,” and that the “court may rule and the court may not” rule on the motion.

Last Friday, the panel that will hear the appeal voted 2-1 to grant the league’s motion for a temporary stay, while considering the motion for a stay through the resolution of the appeal.  Since separate briefs were submitted on the question of whether a stay will be granted, including a final brief from the NFL on Monday, May 2, it’s reasonable to expect that a ruling on the motion will at some point be made.  Then again, this is one of the basic realities of the court system.  Very often, courts do what they want to do when they want to do it, without giving any explanation or notice.

Permalink 56 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Union
56 Responses to “Clerk says Eighth Circuit simply may not rule on motion for stay”
  1. commandercornpone says: May 4, 2011 7:10 PM

    the lyric “she’s always a woman to me” comes to mind…

    they’ll be ready when they’re ready

  2. jakek2 says: May 4, 2011 7:13 PM

    If the temporary stay doesn’t expire and they don’t rule on the motion, that means the 8th Cir. has effectively granted the motion. If that’s the case, the Players should file an appeal with the U.S. Sup. Ct. and argue that the 8th Cir. has overstepped its bounds by unilaterally imposing a stay without formally ruling on the motion. Basically, the 8th Cir. has rendered an unappealable ruling which is itself appealable and should be overturned immediately by the Sup. Ct.

    Very interesting stuff

  3. descendency says: May 4, 2011 7:13 PM

    Doesn’t this mean that no further appeals could be made?

  4. pacificamjr says: May 4, 2011 7:14 PM

    cool

  5. skindome1234 says: May 4, 2011 7:15 PM

    I am in court every day and Judges have a GOD complex. They are out of touch with the average person and thier self importance would shock you. This decision will drag just to keep thier names in the news. When else would you ever hear or care who is the Eigth Circuit Judges! So sit tight folks it’s gonna be a long joyless ride.

  6. eagleswin says: May 4, 2011 7:17 PM

    They could keep status quo for a month until the appeal is heard. There’s no irreperable harm here.

    It could be their way of saying that Judge Nelson is an idiot without having to overrule her and officially saying she’s an idiot.

    The players aren’t suffering irreperable harm while the lockout issue is being resolved. There’s simply nothing to support it.

  7. smacklayer says: May 4, 2011 7:18 PM

    Works for me. No ruling is the same as ruling to stay Judge Nelson’s order.

  8. vtboarder says: May 4, 2011 7:27 PM

    Osama’s head.

  9. kidder95 says: May 4, 2011 7:27 PM

    How convenient! I will tell my boss tomorrow that I may or may not produce the quantitative inputs that will determine the strategic direction of our rule based approach to risk.

    I’m sure he will understand. You know, these things happen. Best not make waves when you can just let it fail on its own accord.

    Weak.

  10. cletusvandam says: May 4, 2011 7:28 PM

    The only way to make the players really negotiate a cba is if the lockout stands.

  11. waccoforflacco says: May 4, 2011 7:28 PM

    Great….more players will be going broke and maybe they’ll we willing to negotiate rather then blindly following that idiot DeMaurice Smith through all these court proceedings which are getting nowhere.

  12. denverhighrize says: May 4, 2011 7:30 PM

    Of course they won’t A & E is airing replays of the “Royal Wedding”

  13. garyman1 says: May 4, 2011 7:31 PM

    “The court may rule and the court may not rule”…. What in the wide, wide world of sports is going on here ? Was that a joke ?

  14. buffordtjustice says: May 4, 2011 7:31 PM

    Courts Suck!!

  15. p4ever says: May 4, 2011 7:32 PM

    In other words, now that we have our BS and corrupt temporary stay in place, we are in no rush to look at the evidences…

  16. randolph32 says: May 4, 2011 7:36 PM

    Dust off your clubs, these jagbags aren’t in any hurry, they’re GOVERNMENT WORKERS!

  17. igor1984 says: May 4, 2011 7:39 PM

    This is high-handed courtroom bull-pucky! “The court may rule and the court may not!” why not?There are several hundred young men whose lives are on hold waiting to know if they will get an opportunity to continue with their dream of playing in the NFL. Every day they have to wait prevents them from getting on with their life.

    The doddering stooges wearing the black robes ought to think about the impact their inaction is having on real people. Do your jobs and answer the question of a ‘the temporary’ stay NOW!

    By the way, the public’s patience is wearing thin on this whole stupid side-show. The court should really just order both sides to binding arbitration and get it all over with and get back to business as usual.

  18. 8man says: May 4, 2011 7:45 PM

    No…longer…interested.

    NBA and NHL playoffs. MLB back in full swing. Triple Crown. MLS soccer. And a closet full of porn for when its cold and the NFL isn’t doing something I, by then, will no longer care about.

  19. theblowtorchreview says: May 4, 2011 7:50 PM

    Oy vay……..the only people enjoying this cluster F**K are the lawyers……and that’s a shame!

  20. bcjim says: May 4, 2011 7:52 PM

    If it was so important that they had to issue a temp. stay, shouldn’t that mean that it is important enough to actually rule.

    If it doesn’t merit a ruling it certainly didn’t merit a temporary stay.

  21. kennadrin says: May 4, 2011 7:52 PM

    To all of you crying foul that the courts are on the owners side, where was the crying when the original liberal judge decided she was going to rule based on her interpretation? Now that the 8th has it, the players WILL break..

  22. crycal says: May 4, 2011 7:53 PM

    skindome1234 says:
    May 4, 2011 7:15 PM
    “I am in court every day and Judges have a GOD complex. They are out of touch with the average person and THIER self importance would shock you. This decision will drag just to keep THIER names in the news. When else would you ever hear or care who is the EIGTH Circuit Judges! So sit tight folks it’s gonna be a long joyless ride.”

    I am guessing that you are in court everyday as a defendant due to your impeccable spelling abilities.

    THIER= THEIR, EIGTH=EIGHTH………just sayin…..

  23. nineroutsider says: May 4, 2011 7:56 PM

    skindome1234 says: May 4, 2011 7:15 PM

    I am in court every day and Judges have a GOD complex. They are out of touch with the average person and thier self importance would shock you. This decision will drag just to keep thier names in the news. When else would you ever hear or care who is the Eigth Circuit Judges! So sit tight folks it’s gonna be a long joyless ride.
    —————————————————-
    Awesome post and so true!

    When have you ever heard of a clerk taking interviews? These guys are used to hearing cases regarding tractor hoes and soybean seeds, so yeah this is going to get dragged out.

    All the more reason for dumb and dumber to make a deal already starting 5/16.

    GET SOME!

  24. mhs8031 says: May 4, 2011 7:57 PM

    Why dont we give lawyers team colors and judges zebra stripes and whistles?

  25. endzonezombie says: May 4, 2011 7:59 PM

    Just another reason to hate St. Louis – including the Rams.

  26. bronco1st says: May 4, 2011 8:02 PM

    Funny how the Judges fell all over each other in their rush to rule for the owners request to temporarily lift the stay lifting the lockout, the even worked on the weekend to comply with their masters wishes. Let them drag their feet, they will open the doors to be quickly over ruled by a higher court for biased and unequal expediency in handling of request for the players motion to remove the temporary decision to deny Judge Nelson’s ruling to lift the lockout. An appearance before the judicial ethics review board would be appropriate as well.

  27. moochzilla says: May 4, 2011 8:03 PM

    So won’t do their jobs. Bet they cash the paychecks though.

  28. seabreezes51 says: May 4, 2011 8:03 PM

    Clerks…….. a great movie

  29. endzonezombie says: May 4, 2011 8:08 PM

    vtboarder says:
    May 4, 2011 7:27 PM
    Osama’s head

    Typical incohenrt response from the boonies.

  30. endzonezombie says: May 4, 2011 8:08 PM

    * incoherent

  31. possiblecabbage says: May 4, 2011 8:11 PM

    “jakek2 says: May 4, 2011 7:13 PM

    If the temporary stay doesn’t expire and they don’t rule on the motion, that means the 8th Cir. has effectively granted the motion. If that’s the case, the Players should file an appeal with the U.S. Sup. Ct. and argue that the 8th Cir. has overstepped its bounds by unilaterally imposing a stay without formally ruling on the motion. ”

    You do realize that the SCOTUS only takes a tiny percentage of the cases that are offered to it, right? The actual anti-trust case between the NFL and NFLPA probably wouldn’t be considered by the Supreme Court, so there’s absolutely no chance that they would take anything having to do with a preliminary injunction in a case that is set to be heard by an appellate court within a month. If the 8th Circuit overturns judge Nelson on appeal, and the NFLPA pushes this to the Supremes, we probably wouldn’t get a ruling on it until the entire season has been missed.

    Like it or not, the 8th Circuit is pretty much where the buck stops.

  32. jpmelon says: May 4, 2011 8:11 PM

    this means that at least one of the judges is a Miami fan…they are trying to give Sparano time so that he can hand out a playbook before the lockout is back on.

  33. tommythek says: May 4, 2011 8:14 PM

    I could just vomit.

  34. commandercornpone says: May 4, 2011 8:24 PM

    here i fixed it for you…

    Funny how the first Judge fell all over herself in her rush to rule for the players request to lift the lockout, she even worked late hours to comply with her union’s* wishes. Let her shuffle her feet, but she opened the doors for herself to be quickly over ruled by a higher court for biased and unequal expediency in handling of request for the players motion to deny the owners any semblance of true legal review after the players basically refused to negotiate after the owners exercised their right to terminate the contract. An appearance before the judicial ethics review board would be appropriate as well for such a kneejerk jackass liberal judge like nelson.

  35. mattyc says: May 4, 2011 8:39 PM

    The judges are sort of similar to that umpire or referee whose name you know…… Yet, you should NEVER know the name of an ump or ref…. Unfortunately, there are some in sports, some in life, & some in courts who want to make themselves much more important to a ruling than they really are. Do your job & make the call you see, not come up with something improbable or unrealistic to make yourself known to the world.

    Fuc***’ morons

  36. seabreezes51 says: May 4, 2011 8:40 PM

    Possiblecabbage,
    I can’t “like” what you said, but it is true…..

  37. thefiesty1 says: May 4, 2011 9:09 PM

    Keep ‘em guessing and give you guys something to write about. No news is good news.

  38. bronco1st says: May 4, 2011 10:28 PM

    Hey, if a non-citizen in the form of a the Cuban boy refugee Elián González, can come to our country and have his case’s merits reviewed and ruled upon by various courts including the 11th circuit court numerous times before being reviewed by the US Supreme Court, all in a matter of months, then I see no reason why the US Supreme Court could/would not grant a temporary order to lift the now temporary order of the 8th circuit court, until that court (the 8th) makes a final ruling on the owners request to overturn the Minnesota court (Nelson’s) ruling to order business to commence as usual immediately. Courts cannot make “pocket veto” rulings that impede and thereby deny the right to speedy trial, especially if that type of pocket veto ruling has the potential to cause further harm to the aggrieved party in question. So forget the idea of going to the Supreme Court for a temporary ruling overturning the now temporary ruling as leading to and continuing until “the entire season has been missed”. A temporary ruling by the Supreme court would only expedite the ruling process (much like the owners motion for a temporary stay from a higher court, the 8th) and in no way would it hinder the 8th circuit court’s ability to make a final judgment on the owners appeal to the lower courts ruling (Nelson’s). It would simply say, continue with the original courts decision or decide on the appeal made by the owners through the 8th. Simply stated, if the Supreme court decides to overturn the temporary stay, it could happen within days of the request to do so, and in no way would it involve any future decision to hear or not hear an appeal made by either side once the decision has been made (by the 8th as to the validity of Nelson’s original ruling. Is that clear enough?

  39. goldsteel says: May 4, 2011 10:31 PM

    I wish I was a judge. If I don’t feel like working on this issue then I won’t. The pay is the same. The clock is ticking for everyone involved. At this point, no matter how this gets resolved which looks like later rather than sooner, there is going to be some kind of fan backlash.

  40. 411dooleybug1 says: May 4, 2011 10:38 PM

    The first step on the road to hell is easier to resist than the thousand which will surely follow…

    What are we, about 57 steps in now?

    Nobody wins here.

  41. 3yardsandacloud says: May 4, 2011 10:55 PM

    1) The only way the Court will not rule is if they can decide the underlying appeal with such expediency that the stay because moot

    2) The lack of respect for Federal Appellate Court Judges is astounding. You aren’t appointed to Appellate Courts generally, and Federal Appellate Courts specifically if you do not have a solid understanding of the law and how it need be applied

    3) I’ll stipulate that some District Court or Circuit Court Judges may not be in their positions because of their knowledge, but the Appellate Court is a completely different scenario

    4) To the jacka$$ that said “I’m in court everyday…” You aren’t in Appellate Court everyday and judging my your viewpoint, a firm that would allow you to represent their clients is making a grave error. I don’t know what po-dunk town you’re working in, but Judges are to be respected, especially by officers of the court such as yourself.

    You are the prototypical person that I wish would have never been given a license as you degrade the profession with you’re ridiculous and astoundingly ignorant comment

  42. footballhistorian says: May 4, 2011 11:20 PM

    Mojo Nixon said it right – “Destroy All Lawyers”

  43. palinforpresidentofnorthkorea says: May 4, 2011 11:43 PM

    De Mo’ led the players down the litigation path instead of negotiating. He’s the one that should lose his job!

  44. zizzod says: May 4, 2011 11:45 PM

    Sounds like a lot of progress is being made. Gotta love the court system.

  45. deadeye says: May 5, 2011 12:51 AM

    The 8th court is balancing out all the nonsense that the bitch in Minnesota spewed forth. There’s no way to know how all this turns out, but hopefully this will force the players to sit down and negotiate in good faith. The decertification was a sham and everyone knows it.

  46. CKL says: May 5, 2011 2:12 AM

    This is otherwise known as the “Bartleby the Scrivener” defense:”I prefer not to”.

  47. geo1113 says: May 5, 2011 7:15 AM

    If you click on the link, you would find that the court will hear oral arguments on June 3. That is expediting it. They could have put it off longer. This isn’t the only case before the court.

    What will expedite things even more quickly is for the players and owners to negotiate in earnest when mediation starts on May 16. The owners made a proposal. The union decertified. The ball is in the players’ court (so to speak), they need to make a counteroffer.

  48. olcap says: May 5, 2011 8:24 AM

    @3yardsandacloud,

    Judges are lawyers. Lawyers are only slightly lower on the smarminess scale than used-car salesmen (and NFL owners).

    Respect for these yo-yo’s? YOU can respect them if you want, I simply have, and will continue to hold, disgust for these creatures.

  49. anthonyfromstatenisland says: May 5, 2011 8:35 AM

    One thing’s for certain: The longer this gets tied up, the better it is for the owners.

    And that’s totally awesome so far as I’m concerned – since the owners must win this; otherwise the NFL turns into another MLB, with its quarter-billion-dollar contracts for primadonna superstars, and small-market teams having 20 losing seasons in a row.

  50. rogerfromoz says: May 5, 2011 8:36 AM

    Both sides should end up on the turd watch.

  51. tjrubleysaudible says: May 5, 2011 10:30 AM

    What the he11’s goin on out here???

  52. umrguy42 says: May 5, 2011 10:37 AM

    endzonezombie says: May 4, 2011 7:59 PM

    Just another reason to hate St. Louis – including the Rams.

    —————————————————–

    You *do* realize, genius, that while the Court is based in St. Louis, the three judges handling the appeal are *not*.

  53. jakek2 says: May 5, 2011 11:02 AM

    possiblecabbage says:

    You do realize that the SCOTUS only takes a tiny percentage of the cases that are offered to it, right? The actual anti-trust case between the NFL and NFLPA probably wouldn’t be considered by the Supreme Court, so there’s absolutely no chance that they would take anything having to do with a preliminary injunction in a case that is set to be heard by an appellate court within a month. If the 8th Circuit overturns judge Nelson on appeal, and the NFLPA pushes this to the Supremes, we probably wouldn’t get a ruling on it until the entire season has been missed.

    Like it or not, the 8th Circuit is pretty much where the buck stops.
    ————-
    Really? The SCOTUS only takes a tiny percentage? I thought they hear every single case!

    Obviously the SCOTUS only hears a tiny percentage. However, are you that naive to think that the MONEY factor has nothing to do with what cases the SCOTUS hears???? If the players lose at the 8th and the case doesn’t settle, expect the SCOTUS to weigh in.

  54. thephantomstranger says: May 5, 2011 11:12 AM

    I find this whole situation very unappealing.

  55. ntr0py says: May 5, 2011 12:03 PM

    “If the temporary stay doesn’t expire and they don’t rule on the motion, that means the 8th Cir. has effectively granted the motion. If that’s the case, the Players should file an appeal with the U.S. Sup. Ct. and argue that the 8th Cir. has overstepped its bounds by unilaterally imposing a stay without formally ruling on the motion. Basically, the 8th Cir. has rendered an unappealable ruling which is itself appealable and should be overturned immediately by the Sup. Ct.”

    It would literally be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to hear such an issue. The 8th circuit has essentially unlimited discretion when it comes to granting stays of rulings until they have an opportunity to hear from the parties in court.

  56. ntr0py says: May 5, 2011 12:10 PM

    I think the supreme court will eventually hear this case. In the last case they alluded to the fact that the NFL retains the right to jointly set certain rules that apply to all 32 teams.

    Now they are going to have to identify a test for determining which of those rules are and are not permissible under anti trust law.

    Anything less will ensure that substantial legal uncertainty remains when the next labor dispute arises.

    That said:

    1. This is unlikely to happen before the 8th circuit issues its final ruling on the issue, very likely in an en banc hearing at least two years from now.

    2. The dynamics of the situation will have changed substantially by then. Amongst other issues:

    a. several seasons are likely to have been played

    b. the owners are likely to have been forced to disclose their financials.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!