NCAA Grant-in-Aid Litigation-Court issues order 3/28 - Trial set for December

[Duke95]

For those keeping up with the NCAA Grant-in-Aid litigation where athletes are suing the NCAA for restricting compensation, the Court issued an order yesterday denying summary judgment and setting the trial date for December.
If the athletes win, this will likely go to the 9th Circuit again, so the decision will still be a ways off.

Anyway, Court's findings:


Plaintiffs have produced undisputed evidence that greater compensation and benefits would
be offered in the recruitment of student-athletes absent the challenged rules, meeting their burden for summary adjudication
on this question. Defendants’ position is that O’Bannon is binding on this point under the doctrine of stare decisis. See
802 F.3d at 1070-72; 7 F. Supp. 3d at 971-73, 988-93. They have not meaningfully disputed Plaintiffs’ showing that the challenged
restraints produce significant anticompetitive effects within the relevant market. Because Plaintiffs have met their burden and
Defendants have not created a factual dispute, the Court will grant the parties’ cross-motions for summary adjudication of this
element and find that the challenged restraints produce significant anticompetitive effects in the relevant market.

The Court also obviated 7 of the NCAA's claimed "procompetitive justifications." Only two remain to balance against the anticompetitive conduct: "integrating academics with athletics and preserving the popularity of the NCAA’s product by promoting its current understanding of amateurism."

You can download here, if interested. https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/ncaa_scholarships/docketno.804-orderrecrossmotionsforsummaryjudgment.pdf

[22JumpShots]

For those keeping up with the NCAA Grant-in-Aid litigation where athletes are suing the NCAA for restricting compensation, the Court issued an order yesterday denying summary judgment and setting the trial date for December.
If the athletes win, this will likely go to the 9th Circuit again, so the decision will still be a ways off.

Anyway, Court's findings:



The Court also obviated 7 of the NCAA's claimed "procompetitive justifications." Only two remain to balance against the anticompetitive conduct: "integrating academics with athletics and preserving the popularity of the NCAA’s product by promoting its current understanding of amateurism."

You can download here, if interested. https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/ncaa_scholarships/docketno.804-orderrecrossmotionsforsummaryjudgment.pdf

Curious, why the 9th Circuit Court? Aren't they basically a pit-stop on the way to the Supreme Court? I am not well versed in law etc, but I believe I read somewhere that the 9th Circuit Court have had some 80%+ of ALL of their verdicts overturned by the Supreme Court.

Not that the SC would get involved here, but I just don't see the connection from NCAA/BBALL and the 9th Circuit.

[IrishDevil]

The connection to the 9th Circuit is not with the NCAA or BB, it is with the court currently hearing the case. This case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Appeals from that court necessarily are heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The parties may not choose the court to which they appeal.

[campered]

For those keeping up with the NCAA Grant-in-Aid litigation where athletes are suing the NCAA for restricting compensation, the Court issued an order yesterday denying summary judgment and setting the trial date for December.
If the athletes win, this will likely go to the 9th Circuit again, so the decision will still be a ways off.

Anyway, Court's findings:



The Court also obviated 7 of the NCAA's claimed "procompetitive justifications." Only two remain to balance against the anticompetitive conduct: "integrating academics with athletics and preserving the popularity of the NCAA’s product by promoting its current understanding of amateurism."

You can download here, if interested. https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/ncaa_scholarships/docketno.804-orderrecrossmotionsforsummaryjudgment.pdf

First, thanks for the link! Having briefly read the first part of the statement, it mentions "elite athletes" of college football, and men's and women's basketball, making the complaint. Many say these players should get a stipend, or some type of monetary compensation while performing as college athletes. One needs to stop and think about the "elite athletes" that perform their craft in all the other NCAA sports. From Rowing teams to Equestrian teams and Field Hockey teams to Fencing teams, and Swimming teams to Soccer teams, and so on. You just cannot compensate a couple of sports teams even if they produce much more revenue than all of the other NCAA sanctioned teams, in my opinion. As far as I am concerned, a Pandora's Box, is awaiting if things move in the direction that certain athletes want. During the current NCAA basketball tournament, Charles Barkley expressed the same sentiments about this issue. Maybe there is enough revenue to compensate all of the athletes in all of the NCAA realm, but I seriously doubt it.

[22JumpShots]

The connection to the 9th Circuit is not with the NCAA or BB, it is with the court currently hearing the case. This case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Appeals from that court necessarily are heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The parties may not choose the court to which they appeal.

Oh okay. Thanks for the knowledge :) - Is your profile pic (avatar or whatever it's called around here) specifically for this thread? :p

[22JumpShots]

Maybe there is enough revenue to compensate all of the athletes in all of the NCAA realm, but I seriously doubt it.

I think the issue is not about how much money there is, but are the ones who posses willing to share. (They aren't.)

[Duke95]

First, thanks for the link! Having briefly read the first part of the statement, it mentions "elite athletes" of college football, and men's and women's basketball, making the complaint. Many say these players should get a stipend, or some type of monetary compensation while performing as college athletes. One needs to stop and think about the "elite athletes" that perform their craft in all the other NCAA sports. From Rowing teams to Equestrian teams and Field Hockey teams to Fencing teams, and Swimming teams to Soccer teams, and so on. You just cannot compensate a couple of sports teams even if they produce much more revenue than all of the other NCAA sanctioned teams, in my opinion. As far as I am concerned, a Pandora's Box, is awaiting if things move in the direction that certain athletes want. During the current NCAA basketball tournament, Charles Barkley expressed the same sentiments about this issue. Maybe there is enough revenue to compensate all of the athletes in all of the NCAA realm, but I seriously doubt it.

No problem. So, the issue here is that each school (or conference) can decide whether to pay athletes or not individually. The rules would not be made by the NCAA. Some athletes would get paid more than others, just like some athletes get more scholarship money than others in equivalence sports (e.g., soccer, wrestling, etc.).

[rasputin]

Curious, why the 9th Circuit Court? Aren't they basically a pit-stop on the way to the Supreme Court? I am not well versed in law etc, but I believe I read somewhere that the 9th Circuit Court have had some 80%+ of ALL of their verdicts overturned by the Supreme Court.

Not that the SC would get involved here, but I just don't see the connection from NCAA/BBALL and the 9th Circuit.

The Supreme Court only gets itself involved in a tiny sliver of all the cases that are petitioned to come before the SC. And most of the Circuit Courts of Appeals have high reversal rates in the cases the Supreme Court takes.

[Indoor66]

The Supreme Court only gets itself involved in a tiny sliver of all the cases that are petitioned to come before the SC. And most of the Circuit Courts of Appeals have high reversal rates in the cases the Supreme Court takes.

They can only be reversed in cases the Supreme Court takes!

[rasputin]

They can only be reversed in cases the Supreme Court takes!

My point was that the earlier post had claimed that the 9th Circuit was reversed by the Supremes 80% of the time, which obviously is not the case.

[22JumpShots]

My point was that the earlier post had claimed that the 9th Circuit was reversed by the Supremes 80% of the time, which obviously is not the case.

Yes it very well is the case. (Daily Caller is not even close to my first source for anything but little research and effort will show what I stated earlier is in fact true. I don't plan on going further than this.) I guess what my point is, as another poster said, if the 9th is handling this, it is indeed FAR from over.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/09/9th-circuit-has-80-percent-reversal-rate-at-supreme-court/ -- The link in the first paragraph should take you too the American Bar Association

Quotes from article -

"Eight of out of 10 cases from the 9th Circuit reviewed by the Supreme Court are overruled, according to a 2010 analysis published by the American Bar Association. The 9th Circuit, which is known for its liberal tendencies, has the second-highest reversal rate of the 13 appellate courts below the Supreme Court"

"“No one familiar with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should be surprised at today’s ruling,” South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy said in a statement. “The 9th Circuit has a well-earned reputation for being presumptively reversible.”"

Edit - Not trying to argue. Just friendly back and forth. I believe what I said to be true, and for anyone to say what I said was untrue, I reserve the right to back up what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. Go Duke! :)

[BD80]

First, thanks for the link! Having briefly read the first part of the statement, it mentions "elite athletes" of college football, and men's and women's basketball, making the complaint. Many say these players should get a stipend, or some type of monetary compensation while performing as college athletes. One needs to stop and think about the "elite athletes" that perform their craft in all the other NCAA sports. From Rowing teams to Equestrian teams and Field Hockey teams to Fencing teams, and Swimming teams to Soccer teams, and so on. You just cannot compensate a couple of sports teams even if they produce much more revenue than all of the other NCAA sanctioned teams, in my opinion. As far as I am concerned, a Pandora's Box, is awaiting if things move in the direction that certain athletes want. During the current NCAA basketball tournament, Charles Barkley expressed the same sentiments about this issue. Maybe there is enough revenue to compensate all of the athletes in all of the NCAA realm, but I seriously doubt it.

Do the horses get a stipend as well?

They could get a degree at unc, but what is that worth?

[BigWayne]

The connection to the 9th Circuit is not with the NCAA or BB, it is with the court currently hearing the case. This case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Appeals from that court necessarily are heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The parties may not choose the court to which they appeal.

No, but they can choose where to file with an eye to how it will move through the process. The most blatant examples of this have been the cases on immigration being filed to oppose Trump administration moves. They have been filed in places like Hawaii where the local courts and the appeals courts can be assumed to be favorable to the plaintiff's view.

This particular lawsuit is filed on behalf of athletes all over the country against the NCAA and all of the conferences spread all over the US. It could have been filed anywhere. The decision to file in northern California was a conscious one.

[Duke95]

No, but they can choose where to file with an eye to how it will move through the process. The most blatant examples of this have been the cases on immigration being filed to oppose Trump administration moves. They have been filed in places like Hawaii where the local courts and the appeals courts can be assumed to be favorable to the plaintiff's view.

This particular lawsuit is filed on behalf of athletes all over the country against the NCAA and all of the conferences spread all over the US. It could have been filed anywhere. The decision to file in northern California was a conscious one.

So, your "most blatant examples" claim isn't true .The cases filed against Trump were in Hawaii (Hawaii v. Trump, 9th circuit) and Maryland (IRAP v. Trump, 4th circuit). The 4th Circuit is generally regarded as the most conservative.

One of the reasons the current case is filed in the No. District of CA is that this is the same place where O'Bannon was filed. Hagens Berman is one of the firms working the case and they're based out of Seattle. There have been other cases against NCAA filed in other districts, e.g., Law v. NCAA (2nd district).

[GeneBanksManCrush]

Still, the reputation of the 9th circuit court is of being one of the most liberal, if not the most.

Not saying this is either a good or bad thing, but one might expect it to be sympathetic to the plaintiffs' side of the issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25sfninth.html

[Jim3k]

Hopefully avoiding any claim of PPB infringement, but clarifying the facts about federal appellate court reversal rates via fact-checking, here is a non-biased study covering decisions from 1999-2008:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/

Keep in mind that the total number of finalized cases at the appellate level is huge while the number of cases the Supreme Court hears is infinitesimal. Very few case can be appealed to the Court by right. The rest are by permission, known as a petition for a writ of certiorari. Taken together those amount to about 1/10 of a percent. So reversal data for all the courts is based on that tiny number. As Snopes says: "...of the very tiny fraction of decisions by federal courts of appeal that SCOTUS agrees to review each year (0.1%), 80 percent of that small portion of appeals originating with the Ninth Circuit Court were overturned." But the rate is relatively high for all of the Circuits. The Ninth wasn't even the highest; that was the Federal Circuit. But the order changes every year.

Raw data from later years can be found at ScotusBlog (http://www.scotusblog.com/reference/stat-pack/). You will have to break them out yourself by year. One attempt to do so is here, at PunditFact (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/)(a division of Politifact):

It found:

"In fact, the Supreme Court reversed about 70 percent of cases it took between 2010-15. Among cases it reviewed from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, it reversed about 79 percent.

The 9th Circuit’s reversal rate is higher than average, but it’s not the absolute highest among the circuit courts. That distinction goes to the 6th Circuit, which serves Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, with an 87 percent average between 2010-15. The 9th Circuit is in third place.


6th Circuit - 87 percent;
11th Circuit - 85 percent;
9th Circuit - 79 percent;
3rd Circuit - 78 percent;
2nd Circuit and Federal Circuit - 68 percent;
8th Circuit - 67 percent;
5th Circuit - 66 percent;
7th Circuit - 48 percent;
DC Circuit - 45 percent;
1st Circuit and 4th Circuit - 43 percent;
10th Circuit - 42 percent."

[Duke95]

Still, the reputation of the 9th circuit court is of being one of the most liberal, if not the most.

Not saying this is either a good or bad thing, but one might expect it to be sympathetic to the plaintiffs' side of the issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25sfninth.html

There's still a long way before it would even get back to the 9th Circuit. The trial isn't until December, and then there will be time to file notice of appeal, briefs, then the Ninth will set a hearing date, etc.

Plaintiffs have an excellent case here, though.

[devildeac]

Do the horses get a stipend as well?

They could get a degree at unc, but what is that worth?

1. Neigh.
2. $9F.