Judge Nelson moves date for hearing on motion to dismiss


On Monday, the NFL filed a two-page motion to dismiss the Tom Brady antitrust lawsuit.  The bigger news was that the motion won’t be presented to Judge Susan Nelson for a hearing until September 12.

Per the Associated Press, the date has been changed.

The hearing now will be held on August 29, which isn’t really that much of a difference in the grand scheme of what could be a multi-year litigation.  Even though the hearing now will be heard before the regular season’s scheduled starting date instead of one day after the first scheduled Sunday of games, it’s unlikely that there will be a quick decision, unless Judge Nelson decides to summarily deny the motion from the bench.

Thus, unless it were being moved to June 29, or even July 29, the change really doesn’t matter, except perhaps for appearances.

The NFL’s brief previously was due in early August.  That timetable likely will now be accelerated as well.

Also, don’t be surprised if the players also file a motion aimed at securing victory on the merits, with the motion being heard by the court at the same time.  Even if there’s a ruling on the day of the hearing, any decision will be subject to review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

17 responses to “Judge Nelson moves date for hearing on motion to dismiss

  1. Whew…for a minute I thought it said “Judd Nelson”. I thought “Can the lockout be so bad that they are asking HIM to decide?”

  2. We might be better off with Nelson making the final ruling. He, Emilio Estevez, and Molly Ringwald could do one of those 80s movie montages where they accomplish an impossibly large task in 60 seconds while Tears for Fears plays in the background.

  3. The Courts and Judges are playing it smart…keep telling both sides the the decisions wont be known for months and months…therefore telling the owners and players to settle their own pissing match. Why should the courts do what the NFL should do for itself…COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN.

  4. Judge Nelson moves date for hearing on motion to dismiss to August 29th


    This ain’t news. realitypolice predicted this in March, which was a long long time ago, just ask him

  5. The longer this takes, the better(for the fans that want NFL football to stay as it is).

    I am willing to give up part of a season to keep the game the way it is. The NFL needs a salary cap(and floor). The NFL needs parity.

  6. Kind of wish the players would just make a damn counter proposal so that a deal can be done.

  7. seahawkhuskyfan says:
    Jun 9, 2011 11:34 AM
    There is no way I want a female to have anything to do with a decsion in a “boys game”
    She has as much NFL related experience as De Smith AFAIK. In other words, none. But her NFL specific knowledge isn’t as important for her to serve as a judge on this matter as his should be in order for him to have his position.
    Since I am female I could jump on you for unfair sexism but I think your comment speaks for itself. ;).

  8. The real reason for the delay: Judge Judy will be be busy taping her small claims court TV show. The new season starts in September.

  9. Trying to solve this through the courts is just silly and just truns it into politics. Nelson and Doty (liberal) rule for the players. 8th circuit (conservative) rules for the NFL. So it just depends what court it’s in when the dust settles. Why waste millions upon millions on attorneys and not just negotiate instead of suing?

    Players, drop the suits and negotiate.

    NFL, give more money to retired players and lower rookie salaries. That way teams are covered for expensive draft busts while all players who aren’t busts make more.

  10. “…unless Judge Nelson decides to summarily deny the motion from the bench.”

    Hypothetically speaking, what if she grants the motion to dismiss? Isn’t it possible, albeit unlikely, that the majority in the appellate court could impose a judicially recognized end point for the non-statutory labor exemption consistent with what Mr. Clement was arguing—i.e., at least one “business cycle” (one year)? In that scenario, wouldn’t Judge Nelson be compelled to grant the League’s motion to dismiss on August 29? And, in that case, wouldn’t any motion for summary judgment filed by the players be rendered moot?

    In my opinion, there’s more than sufficient time for the Eighth Circuit to issue its ruling AND for there to be an agreement reached between the NFL and players by roughly August 1st to avoid any anticipated economic hit. Contrary to the views of some, I don’t think this ruling will enhance the negotiating leverage of either party all that much. It will, I predict, establish much-needed case law that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the player lockout. That’s important for future litigation.

  11. Why don’t we just assume that she will side with the Players, the 8th circuit will side with the owners and get back to negotiations?

  12. Justin says:
    Jun 9, 2011 12:36 PM
    So glad I could hear seahawkhuskyfan’s misogynistic viewpoint

    Come on man, I love women. I just don’t want them trying to decide what is best for the NFL.

Leave a Reply

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