Court issues January date to hear jeweler's lawsuit vs. Bryant

Cowboys wide receiver Dez Bryant received a Jan. 9, 2012 court date, according to The Dallas Morning News, in a civil lawsuit that he claimed in June was "done."

Eleow Hunt, a jeweler and ticket broker in Colleyville, Texas, filed suit in Tarrant County in September 2010, alleging Bryant and his confidante, David Wells, didn't pay him for about $600,000 in jewelry, sports tickets and loans given to the receiver before the Cowboys selected him in the first round of last year's NFL draft.

It was the second civil suit filed against Bryant within the past year. He settled with a New York jeweler in April over a $267,000 debt.

In addition to the lawsuits, Bryant had a well-publicized run-in with a Dallas-area mall's security staff this offseason. Those problems overshadowed what Bryant did on the field last season, when he had 45 receptions for 561 yards and six touchdowns as a rookie.

Bryant acknowledged in a recent interview that he's had to change the way he does some things.

"Of course there were problems (in the past), and there was some stuff I didn't understand that could have been a problem that I understand now," Bryant said earlier this month on KESN-FM. "I feel like I'm mature as a man and I've got my priorities straight."

View the original article here

Eighth U.S. Circuit Court rules lockout remains in place

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday threw out a judge's order lifting the NFL lockout, handing the league a victory as players and owners endured a second straight day of difficult negotiations at a Manhattan law firm.

Players could file another injunction According to legal sources, the language from Friday's ruling creates an opportunity for the NFLPA to file another expedited injunction seeking more rights for rookies and free agents not under contract. More ...

The ruling vacated an April 25 decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson that the lockout should be lifted because players were suffering irreparable harm. The appeals court had already put that order on hold and said in its ruling that Nelson ignored federal law in reaching her decision.

"While we respect the court's decision, today's ruling does not change our mutual recognition that this matter must be resolved through negotiation," the league and the NFL Players Association said in a joint statement. "We are committed to our current discussions and reaching a fair agreement that will benefit all parties for years to come, and allow for a full 2011 season."

NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith held a conference call at 3 p.m. ET Friday with player reps from all 32 teams to go over the day's court ruling.

The appeals court ruling allows the players' antitrust lawsuit to move forward, but the court did take issue with the NFLPA's decision to decertify on March 11, a move that cleared the way for players to file their still-pending antitrust lawsuit against the league.

"The league and the players' union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement for almost eighteen years prior to March 2011," the appeals court said in its 2-1 decision. "They were engaged in collective bargaining over terms and conditions of employment for approximately two years. ... Then, on a single day, just hours before the CBA's expiration, the union discontinued collective bargaining and disclaimed its status. ... Whatever the effect of the union's disclaimer on the league's immunity from antitrust liability, the labor dispute did not suddenly disappear just because the players elected to pursue the dispute through antitrust litigation rather than collective bargaining."

Judges Steven Colloton and Duane Benton backed the league Friday, just as the two Republican appointees did in two earlier decisions. Judge Kermit Bye, appointed by a Democrat, dissented both times, favoring the players, and he did so again Friday.

Bye had urged settlement of the dispute to avoid a ruling "both sides aren't going to like."

The sides have been meeting for weeks to try to reach a new labor pact, and negotiations were held again Friday in New York.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Retired players ask court to involve them more in labor talks

MINNEAPOLIS -- While NFL owners and players appear to be inching toward a resolution of the league's lengthy lockout, a group of retired players is clamoring to be more involved in the discussions.

The group filed a class-action complaint against the owners and current players in federal court Monday, saying they have been excluded from the mediation sessions taking place in an attempt to end the lockout.

With the scheduled opening of training camps and preseason games fast approaching, Albert Breer writes that owners and players feel pressure to strike a labor deal. More...

Named plaintiffs including Hall of Famers Carl Eller, Franco Harris, Marcus Allen and Paul Krause are asking U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson to put a halt to the mediation she ordered and declare that the current players cannot negotiate on behalf of those who are retired.

Owners and current players have met five times over the last few weeks as they work to put together a new collective bargaining agreement in time to avoid the loss of training camps and games. They met with U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan in Minneapolis last week, including for more than 15 hours Thursday, and will resume meetings Tuesday in New York.

The retired players say that NFL owners; the NFL Players Association and a group of current players, including star quarterbacks Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees, are "conspiring to depress the amounts of pension and disability benefits to be paid to former NFL players in order to maximize the salaries and benefits to current NFL players."

The NFL declined comment on the complaint, which was first reported by The New York Times. The Associated Press left a message for an NFLPA spokesman seeking comment.

The complaint gets to the heart of an issue that has been building for quite some time. Retired players have felt marginalized in the dispute over how to divide more than $9 billion in revenue.

After the owners locked out the players in March, the NFLPA disbanded, and a group of them sued the league for antitrust violations. A small group of retired players, including Eller, Obafemi Ayanbadejo and Ryan Collins, filed their own lawsuit against the league seeking more help for medical treatments of former players and better pensions.

Nelson combined the two lawsuits, and several representatives of the retired players, including Eller and attorney Michael Hausfeld, were present at early mediation sessions in Minneapolis. But as talks have heated up and the venue has shifted from the Twin Cities to Maryland, Massachussetts, Illinois and back to Minneapolis again over the last month or so, the retired players haven't been present.

This hasn't sat well with them, and lawyers for the group have sent letters to Boylan, lobbied NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and held intense media briefings to make their feelings known.

The complaint said the players' decision to decertify their union makes it an antitrust violation for the owners and current players to negotiate for retired players.

It also alleges that the NFL had said it would tap revenue streams both from within and outside the salary cap to help retired players, but union representatives, including executive director DeMaurice Smith, want all the money delegated for the cap to be given to current players.

"Through the settlement they are forging, the Brady plaintiffs, the NFLPA and the NFL defendants are conspiring to set retiree benefits and pension levels at artificially low levels," the complaint alleged.

If Nelson rejects the motion for an injunction on the mediation, the retired players are asking for treble damages.

It wasn't immediately clear what kind of impact the filing would have on the continuing talks between the owners and current players. They were scheduled to resume Tuesday, with the open of training camp less than three weeks away and the preseason opener between the Chicago Bears and St. Louis Rams slated for Aug. 7 in Canton, Ohio.

Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press

View the original article here

Court clears Falcons CB Owens after family violence hearing

The case against Atlanta Falcons cornerback Chris Owens, who allegedly ransacked his ex-girlfriend's apartment, was dismissed after a family violence hearing in Superior Court of Gwinnett County (Ga.) on Wednesday, the player's attorney told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Owens, 24, and Latia Terry, 22, have a 9-month-old child together. According to a police report filed after the June 12 incident, a suspect smashed holes in walls and a giant-screen television, threw lamps and broke the baby's crib. The report stated that the master closet was "piled full of clothes, purses and jewelry. The suspect poured bleach all over the items, leaving discoloration on them and the carpet."

Owens said Terry -- who obtained a restraining order against Owens, according to TMZ.com, which also reported the story initially -- was unhappy with their relationship and sought "revenge."

Owens' attorney, Randall M. Kessler, said, "He’s is pleased that she decided to dismiss the case. He looks forward to working with her to raise their son together."

The 5-foot-9, 179-pound Owens, who started three games during the 2010 season for the NFC South champions, was a third-round pick out of San Jose State in the 2009 NFL Draft.

He was selected the Falcons' Man of the Year in 2010 for his community work and was nominated for the league-wide Walter Payton Award.

View the original article here

San Diego court case tests legality of NFL's fan conduct code

SAN DIEGO -- City Attorney Jan Goldsmith believes the NFL has a right to enforce its code of conduct, including ejecting fans for making obscene gestures and using foul language.

A criminal defense attorney disagrees, saying the code of conduct is unenforceable.

At a hearing set for Friday, attorney Mary Frances Prevost will ask San Diego Superior Court Judge Gale Kaneshiro to clear the arrest record of Jason Ensign. Last month, Kaneshiro threw out battery charges against Ensign, a Kansas City fan who was detained by private security guards during a 2009 Chiefs-Chargers game at Qualcomm Stadium.

Although Goldsmith can't appeal Kaneshiro's earlier decision, he can appeal if the judge grants Ensign's motion. Goldsmith said he is asking the judge to deny the motion to "send a message" about fan behavior.

The NFL has filed an affidavit supporting Goldsmith's view.

Security guards tried to remove Ensign because they said he was yelling obscenities and flipping his middle finger at other fans. Goldsmith charged Ensign with misdemeanor battery for punching and biting a security guard. Kaneshiro ruled there was no justification for removing the fan because he had a First Amendment right to engage in obscenities and a right to defend himself.

"The court's decision was wrong," Goldsmith said Wednesday. "It applied the First Amendment in a way it hasn't been applied before. The code of conduct has been in place three years. It applies in all 32 stadiums. If a fan uses obscene gestures or words, he may be removed from the stadium. This isn't about whether one guy gets charged and convicted of battery. This is about whether we're going to set some kind of precedent."

Goldsmith said he was given an opening when Prevost filed a motion asking the judge for a "finding of factual innocence" to have Ensign's arrest record cleared. Prevost said Ensign, a nurse, has been harmed by the allegations.

Goldsmith said the judge's ruling hasn't set a precedent.

"It just creates a chilling effect. If she grants the motion, we will appeal. Then it will be precedential ...," Goldsmith said. "What this is about is does the NFL have the right to evict fans who violate the code of conduct? If the answer is no, then this fellow and other fans can simply say, 'No, I'm not leaving,' and they can use violence to avoid eviction."

Prevost said Ensign "defended himself after he was attacked."

She also said Goldsmith is "desperate."

"We've already litigated every piece of it," Prevost said. "They lost, and now they're trying to re-litigate it. You can't print something on a ticket and call it a contract. It's not enforceable. To have a contract, you have to have an offer and acceptance. What if they said, 'We want you to dance and do three cartwheels when you walk through the door?' You wouldn't have to if you didn't want to."

"The Top 100: Players of 2011" countdown continues on NFL Network on Sunday, June 19 at 8 p.m. ET. Stay tuned for a reaction show after players Nos. 21-30 are revealed.

Prevost said the code of conduct "is a suggestion. It's not an order. The prosecution at trial tried to say the fan code of conduct is enforceable because it was hung over urinals. Could you imagine a man standing over a urinal and we now form a contract because we say don't do anything obscene? They're everywhere. We have to follow the posters, your honor.

"It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Whatever the code of conduct is, it's between the Chargers and the NFL. It has nothing to do with Qualcomm Stadium. It's city property."

Goldsmith disagrees, saying private entities have the right to remove unruly customers.

"If somebody stood up at an opera and gave everybody the finger or started saying obscenities, they would be ushered out," Goldsmith said. "They don't have the right to beat up the fellow who ushers them out."

Prevost has sued the city and the security guards involved. She said the suit will continue even if her motion is denied Friday.

Jeffrey Miller, the NFL's chief security officer, filed an affidavit saying the code of conduct has reduced fan incidents at stadiums and that he's not aware of other legal challenges to it.

"I'm concerned about the deterrence of crime at these sporting events," Goldsmith said. "The code of conduct is designed to be a deterrent and stop that. The idea of families going to a ballgame, they should not be in fear of there being brawls and all this. People say, 'We should be able to do what we want and say what we want.' I buy tickets, too, and if I'm sitting there with my kids, I don't want someone in front of me provoking a brawl behind me."

Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press

View the original article here

Britt due in court to answer resisting arrest charge in Hoboken

JERSEY CITY, N.J. -- Tennessee Titans wide receiver Kenny Britt is due in a New Jersey courtroom to answer a charge stemming from his second arrest in the state.

He's charged with resisting during a June 8 arrest in Hoboken when detectives suspected he was carrying a marijuana cigar.

Prosecutors say Britt may not appear at Thursday's hearing in Jersey City, but instead may have his lawyer file papers.

Britt pleaded guilty last week to motor vehicle violations related to a previous speeding arrest in his native Bayonne.

The former Rutgers star also has two arrest warrants outstanding in Tennessee. They were issued April 14 by the Tennessee Highway Patrol, which is also investigating an issue on Britt's driver's license applications.

His attorney has said Britt will be in Tennessee soon to deal with the warrants.

Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press

View the original article here

NFL, players state lockout cases; court to rule in 'due course'

ST. LOUIS -- Lawyers for the NFL and its players met before a three-judge panel Friday at the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, with the judges considering the league's appeal of an injunction lifting the nearly three-month lockout.

Kermit Bye, the presiding judge in the hearing -- and the lone dissenter in the appeals court's previous decisions to stay U.S. District Judge Susan Nelson Nelson's April 25 ruling -- said after the 90-minute hearing that the judges would rule "in due course."

Bye added that the panel "wouldn't be all that hurt if you go out and settle that case" and warned the decision will be one that neither party likes. That decision likely will come in 2 to 6 weeks.

Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general representing the league, opened oral arguments by attacking the validity of the NFL Players Association's March 11 decertification. He maintained that, because of the non-statutory labor exemption, the league should have the right to lock out its players for at least one year. He also said the fact that this is the second time the NFLPA has decertified "ought to be a problem for them."

Goodell: Recent talks 'a positive sign' NFL Commissioner
Roger Goodell visited troops in North Carolina instead of judges in Missouri on Friday, but he expressed optimism that a labor deal can be reached. More...

If the union's decertification is ruled invalid, the Brady et al antitrust lawsuit against the NFL would disintegrate and cost the players almost all leverage they have in the labor fight.

Players counsel Ted Olson, Clement's predecessor as U.S. solicitor general, defended the union's decertification by emphasizing it only recertified in 1993 at the league's request.

Judges Steven Colloton and William Duane Benton repeatedly referenced the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which bars injunctions in cases arising from a labor dispute, in asking Olson why the law wouldn't make Nelson's judgment wrong.

Olson responded: "The union is not in existence anymore. The players cannot engage in collective bargaining because it's against the law." Olson also defended the validity of the Brady suit by saying the league had been found in violation of antitrust law "15 times."

Friday's hearing followed three days of clandestine talks in suburban Chicago between the league and players, who met with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith in attendance, but without lawyers.

Clement was asked if those negotiations could hurt the validity of the union's decertification.

"I think what that underscores is that the union has not disappeared forever," Clement said. "Obviously, everyone can make their own judgment, but the problem with the argument on the other side is it assumes that the union is gone forever. I don't think many people who are a student of this game or a student of this industry really believe that's a fact."

Olson contended that the players' actions only were prompted by those of the owners, going back to their 2008 decision to opt out of the collective bargaining agreement that expired in March.

"We don't have much to say, other than to remind everybody that the National Football League cancelled the collective bargaining agreement that they negotiated and entered into," Olson said. "They prematurely and unilaterally cancelled the collective bargaining agreement. And then they unilaterally called a lockout, stopping football in its tracks. The players didn't do that. The National Football League did that."

Goodell was in Fort Bragg, N.C., visiting troops during the hearing, and a league spokesman tweeted that the commissioner isn't a lawyer and "wouldn't have added much to the legal proceedings." NFL general counsel Jeff Pash also didn't attend.

Feldman breaks down Friday's events Lawyers representing the league and its players met before a three-judge panel in St. Louis, but what transpired and what does it mean? NFL Network legal analyst Gabe Feldman cuts through the legalese to answer that and other questions. More...

No NFL team owners were scheduled to be there, but the New York Jets' Woody Johnson came on his own accord.

Conversely, the contingent of active and retired players was over 20 deep. The active players included Jon Beason, Jordan Black, Matt Bryant, Tyson Clabo, Craig Dahl, Adam Goldberg, Cullen Jenkins, Brandon Moore, Jon McGraw, Rudy Niswanger, Chester Pitts, Tony Richardson, Brian Robison, Orlando Scandrick, Jake Scott, (Carolina's) Steve Smith, Andy Studebaker, Osi Umenyiora and Brian Waters.

"I think it was a great turnout because it shows where our jobs are right now, not caused by the players, but caused by the owners," said Smith, the Panthers' wide receiver. "It was important to them, important to myself, important to other players who couldn't be here that have a responsibility as a player rep.

"Maybe a guy couldn't come because his wife just had a baby, or his wife was sick, and we'll relay the message and the information that we observed. That's our responsibility and our job as reps, and also our job as teammates to inform and give each other's input on what's going on."

Spokesmen for both parties declined to comment on the negotiations earlier in the week, citing a court-ordered confidentiality agreement, and a federal magistrate canceled scheduled mediation sessions for next week in Minneapolis because of the "confidential settlement negotiations."

But George Atallah of the NFLPA was adamant that the ongoing legal battle shouldn't stop the parties from attempting to find a long-term solution, which was the aim of the Chicago summit.

"Anybody that believed with litigation or a settlement, that there was a choice between the two, those people are wrong," Atallah said. "We're here today to try and lift the lockout so players can play football. At the same time, that doesn't mean the settlement negotiations couldn't continue. You saw that over the past couple days."

The NFL, in defending its right to lock out the players, maintained that any deal has to happen through face-to-face negotiation, not litigation.

"What we tried to make clear in there is that we think the lockout is actually the best way to get players back on the field," Clement said. "And you might say, 'Why do you think that?' We think that because that's what all the labor laws say, the way you get labor peace is you allow the sides to use the tools that labor laws give them. That means employees get the right to strike and, in certain situation, employers get to lock people out.

"There are other tools available to both sides. The idea is using those tools will accomplish labor peace."

At the very least, the league and players wanted to show the seriousness of their respective approaches Friday.

"Really, our only purpose here today was to show it's important to us, and to represent our players and to show both the court and the public that it's important to us," said Goldberg, the St. Louis Rams' offensive tackle. "We want to get back to work. We want to play. We want to get back to work doing what it is we're trained to do, to put out a great product for you guys on Sundays."

Now the parties wait for the appeals court's ruling, with not much time to lose. Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said last week that he believed some decisions on opening training camps in late July needed to be made by July 4.

"We can't just go from where we are now and jump into games," free-agent offensive tackle Damien Woody, who last played for the New York Jets, told The Associated Press. "There has to at least be an abbreviated training camp to get us somewhat prepared for the season. If not, there are going to be a lot of injuries. ... Training camp usually starts in late July, and time is running out because it's already June. I think we have to get a deal done by late July at the latest."

Free-agent linebacker Ben Leber, one of 10 plaintiffs in the antitrust suit against the league, said the players haven't discussed a specific drop-dead date for reaching an agreement.

"Both sides have a day, whether they want to make it public or not," said Leber, who played for the Minnesota Vikings last season. "The biggest challenge is going to lie with whose day is going to come up first."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View the original article here

League, players hold three-day summit; Friday court date next

ST. LOUIS -- The NFL's labor situation has been on hold for weeks while Friday's lockout-injunction hearing at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals loomed.

It seems the league and players grew a little restless.

The parties secretly met Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in suburban Chicago in an effort to break the nearly three-month-long stalemate in negotiations.

Owners Jerry Jones (Dallas Cowboys), Robert Kraft (New England Patriots), Jerry Richardson (Carolina Panthers), Art Rooney (Pittsburgh Steelers) and John Mara (New York Giants) -- all members of the NFL's labor committee -- were in attendance, as were active players Mike Vrabel, Brian Dawkins, Tony Richardson and Jeff Saturday, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith and NFLPA president Kevin Mawae.

Four key issues in Friday's hearings NFL Network reporter Albert Breer and legal analyst Gabe Feldman explain what could happen when the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears the league's request to keep its lockout of players in effect. More...

The league and players issued a joint statement confirming they had met, but they said they would honor a court-ordered confidentiality agreement.

Smith and Goodell declined to comment to the Chicago Tribune on Thursday when seen leaving Hotel Baker in St. Charles, Ill. All Jones would say about the meeting is: "We can't make a comment about it at all, but we're trying. We're trying. I think the fact that we're meeting is good."

One player, whom the Tribune didn't identify, said the point of the get-together was for the parties to talk without lawyers present.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan also attended the three-day summit, but sources said it was in a different role than he served in leading court-ordered mediation in April and May. After three days of what Boylan called "confidential settlement discussions," he canceled mediation scheduled for next Tuesday and Wednesday in Minneapolis in an effort to keep the sensitive talks private.

Friday's appeals-court hearing will go on, though, and a large player presence is expected. While Drew Brees, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning -- superstar plaintiffs in the antitrust lawsuit against the league -- likely won't make the trip because of prior engagements, between 20 and 30 active players are expected to attended, including other named plaintiffs such as New York Giants defensive end Osi Umenyiora and Minnesota Vikings defensive end Brian Robison.

Among those already in town Thursday were a four-man contingent from the Kansas City Chiefs -- Rudy Niswanger, Brian Waters, Jon McGraw and Andy Studebaker -- as well as New York Jets teammates Richardson and Brandon Moore and Carolina Panthers wide receiver Steve Smith.

Conversely, Goodell and general counsel Jeff Pash aren't expected to attend the hearing, nor are any owners. The league's contingent was made up entirely of lawyers for the last two big court dates, April 6 in St. Paul and May 12 in Minneapolis.

The appeal court's ruling is expected to create major leverage points and help push along negotiations.

The players want the lockout-lifting injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge Susan Nelson, upheld. That seems unlikely based on the opinion written by the appeals court's three-judge panel in its late April issuance of a stay of Nelson's decision, which preserved the owners' right to lock out the players.

The owners want the injunction lifted and also have made overtures at having the antitrust suit dismissed.

Of the three judges on the panel, two -- William Duane Benton and Steven Colloton -- were appointed by George W. Bush. The other, Clinton appointee Kermit Bye, will run the hearing as the senior judge presiding. He was the lone dissenter on the court's decision to grant the league's request for the stay.

Ben Leber, one of 10 plaintiffs in the antitrust case against the league, said the players haven't discussed a specific drop-dead date for reaching an agreement to ensure the on-time start of training camps, which normally would open in about seven weeks. But he said it's necessary to have one in order to reach a deal.

"Both sides have a day, whether they want to make it public or not," Leber told The Associated Press. "The biggest challenge is going to lie with whose day is going to come up first. Once it got to this point, I think it was just a good guess based on most corporate labor disputes that nothing was going to get done until the 11th hour. Now it depends on which 11th hour gets here first."

New Orleans Saints safety Darren Sharper told The AP that he hasn't heard of specific drop-dead dates being discussed, but he believes by start of August, "something has to be etched in stone," as far a new agreement.

"It looks bleak right now, but I'm thinking that something has to get worked out because too many people will be affected negatively if it does not get worked out," Sharper said.

Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said last week at the NFL Spring Meeting that he believed some decisions on opening training camps in late July needed to be made by July 4.

NFL Network insider Jason La Canfora and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View the original article here

NFL tells court only talks can end lingering labor dispute

The NFL filed its reply brief to the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday -- the final piece of business due from either party before the June 3 hearing in St. Louis -- and the league took the opportunity to reiterate its core arguments.

The NFL told the appeals court that U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson lacks the jurisdiction to rule on the lockout-lifting injunction and that the NFL Players Asssociation's decertification needs to go before the National Labor Relations Board first. The league also said Nelson can't issue an injunction to end a lockout that "grows out of a labor dispute," per the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and the non-statutory labor exemption bars the antitrust claims made in the Brady et al lawsuit against the NFL.

Debate: When will NFL's lockout end? Soon? Sometime in July? Will the 2011 season even start on time? Our experts try to provide the answer that fans -- and Commissioner Roger Goodell -- want to know. More ...

The league's conclusion reads: "This Court should vacate the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction and remand with instructions to dismiss or stay the action."

A dismissal of the entire antitrust suit would deal a devastating blow to the players' side, and the NFL additionally asked that the court make clear a resolution to the situation "lies with the labor laws and not the antitrust courts."

The next round of court-ordered mediation between the parties is scheduled for June 7 in Minneapolis.

However, league sources indicate an appeals court ruling in the NFL's favor wouldn't necessarily discredit the whole of Brady et al. Rather, specific language in such a ruling would dictate any fallout on the larger antitrust suit.

Nelson granted the players the preliminary injunction and chose not to stay that decision in late April, leading to a brief lifting of the lockout. The appeals court first granted a temporary injunction of Nelson's ruling, leading to the lockout being reinstated, then on May 16 granted the NFL a stay-on-appeal, which preserves the league's right to lock out the players until a ruling on the appeal.

Last Friday, just minutes before the midnight deadline, lawyers for the players filed their response to the league's original appeal. In that document, the players described the NFL as a "cartel" that has skirted antitrust laws and damaged their careers with a work stoppage that has lasted more than two months.

In its Thursday filing, the NFL called that brief a "straw man" attack that made blanket suggestions and ignored important pieces of legislation.

The league combated the players' contention that the previous collective bargaining agreement included a provision that the league couldn't dispute a union decertification. The NFL says it agreed only not to dispute a decertification that came following the expiration of the CBA, and that provision isn't applicable because this one came hours before the labor deal expired March 11.

The primary argument of the NFL on the Norris-LaGuardia Act is that the lockout "involves or grows out of a labor dispute", which under the law would preclude Nelson from issuing the injunction. The league says labor disputes aren't limited to those involving unions and also dismisses volumes of cases that the players provide as precedent against the league's argument because of a lack of specific involvement of Norris-LaGuardia in those.

The NFL's argument on the NLRB's jurisdiction is fairly straight-forward, saying the labor board must rule on the validity of the NFLPA's decertification before any aspect of the Brady et al suit moves forward. The players' argument is that it's unlikely the NLRB would rule against them, on a claim that was filed over three months ago, that the decertification was valid and that deferring to the NLRB would only work to slow the process.

On the non-statutory labor exemption, the NFL claims it shouldn't have been subject to the antitrust case in the first place. The players' argument is that the exemption "lasts only until the collapse of the collective bargaining relationship," which they say happened at the time of decertification.

"No student of the history of this industry -- and no one familiar with the NFLPA leadership's very recent statements of purpose and intent -- believes that the Union is gone, let alone gone forever," attorneys for the NFL wrote.

Much of the brief was spent attempting to dispel precedents the players presented to support their case.

Judge Kermit Bye dissented on the decision to grant the NFL the temporary and the longer stays, and he's the only appointee of a Democratic president (Bill Clinton) on the three-judge panel. Judge Steve Colloton and William Duane Benton were appointed by President George W. Bush.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Players appeal for end to NFL lockout in late-night court filing

MINNEAPOLIS -- Players who sued the NFL for alleged antitrust violations liken the league to a "cartel" in their latest court filing, again urging an appeals court to lift the lockout.

In arguments filed in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, just minutes before Friday's midnight deadline, attorneys for the players reiterated their argument that the NFL has violated antitrust laws. They also argued the lockout has imposed immediate, career-ending threatening harm on players and could deprive the public of the 2011 NFL season.

Carucci: Lockout hits training camps

"The players face immediate, continuing, severe irreparable injury from unlawful conduct orchestrated to force them to re-unionize against their will and make immense financial concessions," the players' attorneys wrote. "The NFL, by contrast, claims only a temporary loss of leverage by members of a cartel that is no longer entitled to any exemption from the antitrust laws."

The longer the fight over how to divvy up $9 billion in annual revenue drags on, the closer the league and players come to missing games. The first preseason game is scheduled for Aug. 7, and the regular-season opener between the New Orleans Saints and Green Bay Packers is set for Sept. 8.

In Friday's filing, the players reiterated that the decision to dissolve their union was their lawful right, and the absence of a collective bargaining agreement shouldn't stop the NFL's ability to "conduct professional football." And, the players argued, the harm they would suffer isn't comparable to the league's argument that it would suffer an "intangible blow to their 'negotiating position' and 'leverage.' "

"The overwhelming inequity in that imbalance is patently obvious," the players' attorneys wrote.

The players have argued all along that their careers are being harmed by the work stoppage -- they can't work out, or sign contracts with any of the 32 teams while the lockout persists. A federal judge in Minnesota agreed and lifted the lockout April 25, but the league appealed.

The appeals court reversed U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson's decision just four days later. And on Monday, the appellate court ruled the lockout can stay in place until a full appeal is heard on whether it is legal. That hearing is set for June 3.

The players received some support Friday from other professional players and fans. The unions for baseball, basketball and hockey players filed a legal brief saying the lockout should be lifted because athletes' careers are short, and the loss of even part of a season causes personal and professional injuries for which they can't be compensated.

In their filing, the unions for Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League wrote, "there is no off-season in professional sports -- only the portion of the work year during which no games are played." The unions said that part of the year brings opportunities -- such as the option to change cities, teams or the trajectory of one's career.

Also Friday, a nonprofit group that has been fighting sport work stoppages said the lockout should be lifted. The Sports Fans Coalition, which says it gives fans a voice on public policy issues and fights for fan access to games, said in a legal brief that the lockout isn't in the best interest of fans, who pay billions of dollars to see their teams perform.

The players' attorneys argued: "The NFL does not suffer irreparable harm from operating the game of football -- especially at a profit."

"Here, there is no question that the interest of the public -- the fans, stadium workers, parking lot attendants, sports bars and restaurants, and local governments -- favors an injunction to allow football to proceed on whatever lawful terms the NFL Defendants collectively impose," the players' attorneys wrote.

The group of players suing the league -- including star quarterbacks Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees -- have said the lockout is inflicting irreparable harm on their brief playing careers by preventing them from working out at team headquarters, holding full practices with teammates and coaches and jeopardizing games.

Their attorneys wrote that suggesting monetary damages, even triple damages, would fully redress the harm to players "ignores the reality of the game."

The NFL has argued in its appeal that lifting the labor lockout without a new contract in place would allow better-off teams to sign the best players, tipping the NFL's competitive balance and damaging the league.

The league also said that lifting the lockout with no labor deal in place would cause chaos, with teams trying to make decisions on signing free agents and making trades under a set of rules that could change drastically under a new agreement.

The league says the union's move to decertify after the initial bargaining talks broke down is a sham; that Nelson doesn't have the jurisdiction to lift the lockout; and that she should have waited for a decision from the National Labor Relations Board before issuing that ruling.

The players disagree with all those points.

They argued that by decertifying, every player gave up many rights, including having union representation at grievances, and the right to collectively bargain and strike. Now, players seek the protections of federal antitrust laws that limit monopolies.

The players also have a federal antitrust lawsuit against the league pending before Nelson. And attorneys for the players filed documents in U.S. District Court on Friday, opposing a league request for more time to respond to the claim. The league has argued that it shouldn't have to respond to the lawsuit until the appeal over the lockout is resolved.

But the players say the lawsuit will go forward whether or not the lockout is lifted and that the NFL's request for an extension is "yet another deliberate step in their campaign to crush the players by extending the lockout for as long as they can."

Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press

View the original article here

October incident leads to court date for Broncos' Dumervil

DENVER -- Broncos Pro Bowl linebacker Elvis Dumervil has been cited for assault and disturbing the peace for an alleged run-in with a security guard at Invesco Field.

Denver court records show the reported incident happened Oct. 24 following the Broncos' 59-14 loss to the Oakland Raiders.

Dumervil's lawyer, Harvey Steinberg, told The Associated Press the linebacker forgot his credentials, and a guard wouldn't allow him into a players' parking lot, despite Dumervil showing his driver's license.

Steinberg said Thursday that it was a simple disagreement and it's "unfair Elvis is being villainized." The incident was first reported by Denver's KDVR-TV.

"Elvis was never arrested, simply given a ticket. He was never handcuffed or had a mug shot," Steinberg said. "It was a simple disagreement. That's what this is. We hope the prosecution reviews it, finds no reason to go forward and dismisses it."

Dumervil already appeared in court once and is set to appear again Jan. 11.

"Disturbing the peace? Hard to believe you can disturb the peace with 75,000 people there," Steinberg said of the incident.

Dumervil, who led the NFL with 17 sacks in 2009, has been out all season after ripping a chest muscle during training camp.

This has been quite a tumultuous season for the Broncos (3-11).

Earlier this month, coach Josh McDaniels was fired with the squad mired in the worst slump in four decades. The team also has been embroiled in a videotaping scandal, sullying the image of the organization.

Away from the field, three Broncos players have been arrested.

Kevin Alexander was arrested earlier this week and pleaded not guilty to charges of assault and battery stemming from an allegation of a domestic dispute over alleged infidelity. The Broncos released the rookie linebacker hours after the arrest, calling it a football decision to clear a roster spot for cornerback Chevis Jackson.

Rookie cornerback Perrish Cox was arrested in a sexual-assault case. The alleged assault was reported a few days after Cox was knocked out of the Oct. 24 game against the Raiders with a concussion. Court documents say the alleged assault happened Sept. 6.

Linebacker D.J. Williams was stripped of his captaincy after his October arrest on suspicion of drunken driving.

"The off-field conduct is something we take very, very seriously," said Broncos interim coach Eric Studesville, whose team hosts the Houston Texans on Sunday. "We've never downplayed that. We hold every person in this organization, coaches, players, staff, to a high standard of conduct away from this building as they represent this organization.

"The situations that have come up, we've complied with every fact-finding opportunity there is. We've cooperated in every way that we can, to gather the facts."

Is Studesville disturbed by the number of arrests?

"My job is to coach football," he said. "Those things that happen, we're going to comply with everything and we're going to help with it. My job is to focus on getting this team ready for the Houston Texans."

Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press

View the original article here

High Court refuses to hear NFL appeal in StarCaps case

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court won't stop a Minnesota state court from getting involved in a fight between the NFL and Minnesota Vikings defensive linemen Kevin Williams and Pat Williams over violations of the league's policy on performance-enhancing substances.

The high court refused Monday to hear an appeal from the National Football League.

The players took the weight-loss supplement StarCaps, which contained an unlisted but banned diuretic that can mask the presence of steroids. The federal courts threw out the players' appeal of their NFL suspensions, but said there were issues that should be considered in state court.

The NFL wanted the entire lawsuit thrown out, saying the players' union contract and federal law trump state law in this case.

The two players argued that the NFL's testing violated Minnesota workplace laws.

"It's a wonderful victory for Kevin and Pat, and it's a wonderful victory for employees in every state throughout the country," the Williamses' attorney, Peter Ginsberg, told The Associated Press. "And hopefully it will make the NFL more sensitive to what state Legislatures decide is important for the safety of their employees."

Ginsberg said a hearing is scheduled for Nov. 17 before the Minnesota Court of Appeals on whether a permanent injunction should be issued against the league so that the Williamses, who are not related, "can play out their careers without worrying the NFL is going to suspend them for this ingestion of StarCaps."

Ginsberg said a permanent injunction is needed because eventually the preliminary injunction allowing the Williamses to continue playing will expire.

The Williamses have been playing for nearly two years, going back to the NFL's initial announcement in December 2008. Both have been playing this season.

Minnesota state law requires that an employer give an employee who tests positive for drug use the right to explain the positive test. The NFL's policy says a positive result won't be excused because a player was unaware he was taking a prohibited substance.

Attorneys for the NFL had argued it should be allowed to enforce its anti-doping policy because it was a product of the NFL's collective bargaining agreement with the NFL Players Association. The agreement is governed by federal labor law, which they argued pre-empted the state laws.

The case is National Football League v. Williams, 09-1380.

Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press

View the original article here