Judge could still dismiss Ezekiel Elliott case

Getty Images

The good news for Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott is that Judge Amos L. Mazzant III issued an order blocking Elliott’s suspension pending the outcome of the litigation filed by Elliott in Texas. The bad news is that the litigation filed by Elliott in Texas could in theory end sooner than later.

A footnote in the official ruling makes it clear that Judge Mazzant may still decide to dismiss the case entirely, based on the argument that it was filed prematurely. More paperwork in association with that specific effort by the league still needs to be filed. Once the argument is ripe for consideration, Judge Mazzant will issue a decision, and he could punt the case in deference to the lawsuit the NFL filed in New York.

But here’s the practical reality of the situation. With Judge Mazzant concluding that “[f]undamental unfairness is present throughout the entire arbitration process,” he’s more likely to be inclined to retain control of the case in order to ensure that the case is processed with the benefit of his conclusions, given that another judge may feel differently. This would result in a different type of justice being dispensed than that which Judge Mazzant believes is justified.

Still, if Judge Mazzant decides to dismiss the case, Elliott would need to move immediately in the New York case to get the injunction maintained so that he can still play pending the outcome of the case. That decision is therefore the next key step in this ongoing legal odyssey.

14 responses to “Judge could still dismiss Ezekiel Elliott case

  1. The Ezekiel Elliott case could and should deal a death blow to the NFL “system” that allows players to be judged and punished by the commissioner and his minions.

    Companies have employee handbooks that detail accepted and unaccepted employee behaviors and the punishment for violating the company’s policies. That a billion-dollar business like the NFL doesn’t have standards for behavior is an outrage and the time has come for this business run by 32 wealthy business owners who should and do know better (they don’t run their businesses like they run the NFL) to do things by a book that everyone can read and follow.

  2. An interesting situation is created if the New York court enters an order confirming the arbitration decision. The NFL could then renew the suspension based on that order, resulting in dueling court decisions.

    Most likely the New York court would stay enforcement of its order pending further litigation in the original forum. Otherwise, things could get interesting.

  3. If the judge devides the process is unfair and/or that there is no actual evidence that Elliot is guilty the NFL can just go back to court and argue that it doesnt matter because the CBA grants the commisioner powers to punish him anyway. The CBA does say that and there is already exactly that legal precedent already established so an NFL win is pretty much in the bag.

    It is not right, but unfortunately it is so.

  4. “If the judge devides the process is unfair and/or that there is no actual evidence that Elliot is guilty the NFL can just go back to court and argue that it doesnt matter because the CBA grants the commisioner powers to punish him anyway.”

    They can’t go back to court, they have to argue that now in front of this judge if it isn’t dismissed. There’s are legal procedural rules called collateral estoppel and preservation of error that would stop them from taking that second bite at the apple in court. Collateral estoppel means you can’t relitigate an issue of fact or law that has already been decided related to the same core set of circumstances; preservation of error means you need to bring up the substantive legal issues before judgment is rendered or you don’t get to use those arguments in subsequent proceedings related to the same set of circumstances.

    So they may argue that the Commissioner’s power is absolute, but the Judge here doesn’t seem to buy that or Elliot would have lost the Preliminary Injunction based on an unlikelihood to succeed on the merits of the case in the end.

  5. Steve Erkel says:
    September 8, 2017 at 7:05 pm
    Got the dude in the 3rd round of my fantasy draft. Steal.

    ===============

    You can’t BEAT that!

  6. I’m sure Roger is having the Brinks truck filled to the brim, and he’ll drop it off on his way to Houston.

  7. ” They can’t go back to court, they have to argue that now in front of this judge if it isn’t dismissed. There’s are legal procedural rules called collateral estoppel and preservation of error that would stop them from taking that second bite at the apple in court.”

    If they appeal they get a second bite so to say

Leave a Reply

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