TRO Denied

[unfrozencvmanvol]

TRO's are hard to win. I won one last summer but I had great facts on every element, especially immediate irreparable harm. That was what was missing here. We will probably win at the injunction hearing stage.

 

[Tman44]

This is merely the first battle in a long war.

 

[turbovol]

Another interesting note from the Judge: "There is sufficient evidence that the NCAA's NIL-recruiting ban likely harms competition."

What is this supposed to mean? Harms competition in what way?

What I find astounding in all this is how, apparently, the schools and the states want NIL in recruiting when
it adds serious complications to recruiting, creates jaded prospects and isn't going to be advantageous for anybody. Some people
apparently think it will be advantageous--but I'd be curious to hear how.

 

[LittleVol]

Why exactly?
You didn't read it, don't understand, or just a sad attempt at being edgy?

He's not informed.

He didn't mean anything by it

 

[BigALWiLson]

He basically said if they pursue any further they are dead in the water. This was basically a warning to them to FAFO. Else there is no reason to say "The court found the states have a likelihood of success on the merits of the antitrust claim (meaning the NCAA #NIL rules likely violate antitrust law), but found there is no irreparable harm.

 

[NighthawkVol]

TRO's are hard to win. I won one last summer but I had great facts on every element, especially immediate irreparable harm. That was what was missing here. We will probably win at the injunction hearing stage.

I agree. I think the injunction will be granted.

I’m 0 for 2 on TROs, but in both cases, the final outcome was favorable.

 

[overseasorange2]

Wow it seems our tune has changed. I thought we wanted the TRO.

 

[CAVPUT]

The justification for the denial is good for Tennessee. The judge said that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstate that failure to grant the TRO would result in irreparable harm. In other words, the meantime between now and the final adjudication wouldn't result in harm that couldn't be remedied by the final ruling.

He COULD have ruled that the TRO was denied because the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits (another of the 4 requirements that must be met in order to grant a TRO). He did not do so. That tells me that the judge sees the Plaintiffs' likelihood of prevailing as being reasonably high and that a final ruling in the Plaintiffs' favor would provide them the necessary relief they seek.

Doesn't mean it's a foregone conclusion by any stretch, but it's a good sign.

Edit: I now see that the Judge wrote, “Considering the evidence currently before the Court, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim under the Sherman Act." Exactly what I was getting at. This is good.

We'd better get the injunction or all bets are off. Even if we are successful with that, the threat/cloud will remain until the case runs it's course. This will absolutely impact our recruiting as well as lead to some very anxious times when the portal opens. We were just about through the impact of the Pruitt debacle and now this hits. Couldn't come at a worse time. This program just can't get a break.

 

[Godfatha]

I think the irreparable harm for the TRO was from now until the possible injunction, correct? So basically a week. It would have been hard to prove irreparable harm for this week. However, I think it would be very easy to show irreparable harm if the NCAA were to suspend Nico or have postseason bans, scholarship reductions, etc. Not to mention the damage it could potentially due to us in the transfer portal. That should be a much easier case to make for the injunction.

I'm no lawyer though.

 

[wmcovol]

Not good.

That was a long shot. The judge did say thou the NCAA didn’t prove its position as not being in violation of anti trust legislation which puts them in a precarious position for next Tuesday.

 

[youcancallmeAl]

What is this supposed to mean? Harms competition in what way?

What I find astounding in all this is how, apparently, the schools and the states want NIL in recruiting when
it adds serious complications to recruiting, creates jaded prospects and isn't going to be advantageous for anybody. Some people
apparently think it will be advantageous--but I'd be curious to hear how.

If schools cannot use NIL in recruiting, then the players must commit to a school before knowing what an NIL compensation package will bring to them at that chosen school relative to the packages that might be attainable at other schools, and therefore schools are not able to compete with NIL packages during recruiting, and therefore it harms competition. Imagine you go on three interviews for a job and none of them will disclose your salary and benefits, and you still must choose between the three of them.

 

[Manchester Vol]

While Tennessee and Virginia aren't granted TRO, the Judge notes: "Considering the evidence currently before the Court, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim under the Sherman Act."

Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground!!!
NCAA is next on the list. Anybody got a light? Asking for uncle Sherman.

 

[Swiftybaby]

Can someone explain TRO without legal jargon

 

[freedom fighter]

Clifton Leland Corker (born 1967) is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Education
Corker received a Bachelor of Business Administration from James Madison University and a Juris Doctor from William & Mary Law School.[1]

Career
After graduating from law school, Corker clerked for then-Magistrate Judge Cynthia D. Kinser of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. From 1994 to 1995, he was a volunteer with the Federal Public Defender's office in Greeneville. He then spent a year at Terry, Terry & Stapleton. From 1996 to 2015, Corker had a solo practice in Johnson City, before becoming a magistrate judge. There, he handled matters including complex civil litigation and capital murder cases.[1]

 

[Sara Clark]

Can someone explain TRO without legal jargon

I think it's a temporary restraining order. That's coming from someone with very little knowledge in the area of law.

 

[freedom fighter]

Clifton L. Corker

Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Incumbent
Assumed office
July 22, 2019
Appointed by Donald Trump
Preceded by J. Ronnie Greer
Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
In office
May 1, 2015 – July 22, 2019
Personal details
Born 1967 (age 56–57)
Richmond, Virginia, U.S.
Education James Madison University (BBA)
College of William & Mary (JD)

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Not good.

Most of us knew this was coming. Nothing to worry about.

 

[TheVolsFrog]

Can someone explain TRO without legal jargon

Temporary Restraining Order. Means stop doing what you're doing until judge rules on it.
In this case and the judge is basically saying since the NCAA hasn't charged UT, sanctioned UT or suspended any player that TN hasn't shown it has by harmed by this and next week we will discuss the merit of the case TN is presenting next week and rule on it at that time. If it is later found that the NCAA did cause harm then they can be basically sued ie for $ to make TN or players whole.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Clifton L. Corker

Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Incumbent
Assumed office
July 22, 2019
Appointed by Donald Trump
Preceded by J. Ronnie Greer
Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
In office
May 1, 2015 – July 22, 2019
Personal details
Born 1967 (age 56–57)
Richmond, Virginia, U.S.
Education James Madison University (BBA)
College of William & Mary (JD)

None of this matters. Why even post it?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Temporary Restraining Order. Means stop doing what you're doing until judge rules on it.
In this case and the judge is basically saying since the NCAA hasn't charged UT, sanctioned UT or suspended any player that TN hasn't shown it has by harmed by this and next week we will discuss the merit of the case TN is presenting next week and rule on it at that time. If it is later found that the NCAA did cause harm then the can be basically sued ie for $ to make TN or players whole.

AKA not a big deal

 

[TheVolsFrog]

AKA not a big deal

With the judges comments today it should be a big deal for the NCAA but yeah not getting the TRO today is no big deal, especially since it goes to court early next week

 

[Swiftybaby]

I think it's a temporary restraining order. That's coming from someone with very little knowledge in the area of law.

Oh hell that makes it sound so much more simple lol. Thanks

 

[Swiftybaby]

Temporary Restraining Order. Means stop doing what you're doing until judge rules on it.
In this case and the judge is basically saying since the NCAA hasn't charged UT, sanctioned UT or suspended any player that TN hasn't shown it has by harmed by this and next week we will discuss the merit of the case TN is presenting next week and rule on it at that time. If it is later found that the NCAA did cause harm then they can be basically sued ie for $ to make TN or players whole.

Thanks brother

 

[Swiftybaby]

None of this matters. Why even post it?

 

[DonDiego]

The justification for the denial is good for Tennessee. The judge said that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstate that failure to grant the TRO would result in irreparable harm. In other words, the meantime between now and the final adjudication wouldn't result in harm that couldn't be remedied by the final ruling.

He COULD have ruled that the TRO was denied because the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits (another of the 4 requirements that must be met in order to grant a TRO). He did not do so. That tells me that the judge sees the Plaintiffs' likelihood of prevailing as being reasonably high and that a final ruling in the Plaintiffs' favor would provide them the necessary relief they seek.

Doesn't mean it's a foregone conclusion by any stretch, but it's a good sign.

Edit: I now see that the Judge wrote, “Considering the evidence currently before the Court, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim under the Sherman Act." Exactly what I was getting at. This is good.

It's good, but the whole argument of the NCAA was that failure to grant a TRO would do no harm to us. I just hate that the judge ruled based on their argument. I do like that it's thought we are likely to prevail, though.