Arbitration News - It May Be Going to Court

[RJChicago 14]

Here is some Yianni/Zain legal proceedings news - forgive me if this has already been posted. Allow me to first say that while I believe this is accurate as of now based on the party that told this to me - this could change -  I heard this from someone in the legal community who is purportedly involved in this upcoming legal challenge - and he is obviously very reliable.

With that said, here is the news: the parties who lost the arbitration are taking this to court to challenge the overturning of Match 2. Or really what they are challenging is the arbitrator's after-the-fact correction of an on-the-mat ruling. I was almost reluctant to post this because this could change. This is accurate as of now, but the situation is fluid and the legal challenge could be dropped or changed at any time. The thing is - and I'm not sure about this - but to any lawyers out there this is an interesting wrinkle in this - I'm interested to see who the party that challenges it is. There are numerous parties who could have standing due to being adversely affected by the arbitrator's ruling. Obviously, Zain himself (though I doubt he will be the legal challenging party - though Keith Sieracki was indeed directly the party in his legal case (at least according to that lawyer) - or it could be NWLC or it could be like USA Wrestling or whatever group put on Finals X and had their call overturned in arbitration (though that would be weird too for other reasons). In any event, it is just an interesting wrinkle for those legally minded folks to see who the party to this challenge will be.

Edited August 17 by RJChicago

[Katie 612]

4 hours ago, RJChicago said:

Here is some Yianni/Zain legal proceedings news - forgive me if this has already been posted. Allow me to first say that while I believe this is accurate as of now based on the party that told this to me - this could change -  I heard this from someone in the legal community who is purportedly involved in this upcoming legal challenge - and he is obviously very reliable.

With that said, here is the news: the parties who lost the arbitration are taking this to court to challenge the overturning of Match 2. Or really what they are challenging is the arbitrator's after-the-fact correction of an on-the-mat ruling. I was almost reluctant to post this because this could change. This is accurate as of now, but the situation is fluid and the legal challenge could be dropped or changed at any time. The thing is - and I'm not sure about this - but to any lawyers out there this is an interesting wrinkle in this - I'm interested to see who the party that challenges it is. There are numerous parties who could have standing due to being adversely affected by the arbitrator's ruling. Obviously, Zain himself (though I doubt he will be the legal challenging party - though Keith Sieracki was indeed directly the party in his legal case (at least according to that lawyer) - or it could be NWLC or it could be like USA Wrestling or whatever group put on Finals X and had their call overturned in arbitration (though that would be weird too for other reasons). In any event, it is just an interesting wrinkle for those legally minded folks to see who the party to this challenge will be.

Fascinating. Now I really want to see the arbitrator’s award.

Very doubtful they could even get a potential lawsuit resolved before worlds begin in five weeks.

Edited August 17 by Katie

[headache 100]

15 minutes ago, Katie said:

Fascinating. Now I really want to see the arbitrator’s award.

I wonder if they could even get a potential lawsuit resolved in court before worlds begin in five weeks. It would certainly take some sort of expedited process.

A temporary restraining order is the only possibility. But since the world are coming up so quick, a TRO would essentially just hand it to Zain with no recourse for Yianni. Bottom line - no judge is going to mess with this.

[NJDan 432]

The problem is not standing -- Zain has standing. And it's not timing-- a TRO can be awarded in one day. The problem is that it's almost impossible to overturn an arbitration award and there are no grounds to do so.

[jon 128]

"Bad for the sport"?

[Katie 612]

7 minutes ago, headache said:

A temporary restraining order is the only possibility. But since the world are coming up so quick, a TRO would essentially just hand it to Zain with no recourse for Yianni. Bottom line - no judge is going to mess with this.

I don’t believe a TRO would resolve the lawsuit. It would simply require some status quo until the actual resolution. 

I think you’re right that it would be difficult to actually overturn an arbitrators award.

But with time being an issue, filing a lawsuit — even if it proves unsuccessful in the end — could prove to affect the timeline of the wrestle-off (or perhaps even prevent one altogether).

of course I have no inside information and this is not  a subject I’m very knowledgeable about 

[headache 100]

11 minutes ago, Katie said:

I don’t believe a TRO would resolve the lawsuit. It would simply require some status quo until the actual resolution. 

I think you’re right that it would be difficult to actually overturn an arbitrators award.

But with time being an issue, filing a lawsuit — even if it proves unsuccessful in the end — could prove to affect the timeline of the wrestle-off (or perhaps even prevent one altogether).

of course I have no inside information and this is not  a subject I’m very knowledgeable about 

There is not enough time to litigate this except on a TRO basis. So technically a lawsuit would remain but it would be tried after the worlds. There is no point in that. Zain better win it on the mat.

[Crotalus 229]

Cael would never get lawyers involved, so we can rule out Zain or NLWC being the ones filing anything.

Also, given the arbiters ruling, I'm not sure how any sort of additional legal action that delayed a wrestle-off would give Zain the spot as opposed to leaving us without a representative. Giving Zain the spot while awaiting further legal action would leave USA wrestling open to a lawsuit with damages from Yianni. I feel they would have to hold the spot open until a wrestle-off occurs.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[hammerlockthree 1,547]

32 minutes ago, jon said:

"Bad for the sport"?

not nearly as bad as incoherent officiating.

[DanGerMan 16]

Wasn't this binding arbitration? I was of the belief that all parties agree to accept the arbitrator's decision as final and cannot take further

legal action after the ruling is made.

[hammerlockthree 1,547]

Cael has to get his way.

[Katie 612]

5 minutes ago, DanGerMan said:

Wasn't this binding arbitration? I was of the belief that all parties agree to accept the arbitrator's decision as final and cannot take further

legal action after the ruling is made.

Arbitration awards can be challenged on a few narrow grounds, I believe. I don’t think they are often overturned. (Again, I am no expert on the subject.)

What interests me about a potential legal challenge is what it does to the timing of a wrestle off. 

[RJChicago 14]

Good points everyone. Just had another conversation about this and a TRO of course is the only option. It seems that in situations like this they will have a sort of mini-trial even though no one calls it that, in which Zain/USAW/NLWC/whoever the litigant is has to basically show that they would have a good chance of prevailing on the merits if there were a full trial - which is a fairly high bar. Most/many courts now are apparently using something called a sort of modified Hand formula where they weigh the need for immediate relief (TRO), the harm caused by not granting that immediate relief if their side were to prevail (but then have no remedy because they didn't get relief in time). 

So it is a fairly high bar, but what is working on the side of the side trying to overturn the arbiter's decision and go back to the call on the mat, is that these TROs have apparently become much easier to obtain in the recent legal environment. Apparently, courts are granting them more easily in recent years (and some courts apparently are granting them especially easily) (kind of like the hundreds of nationwide injunctions that have been granted in the last few years by federal courts, even though previously those were an extraordinary remedy) - and with forum shopping (which is a major thing in TROs because if they get a sympathetic court, that court maybe shouldn't have jurisdiction and the defendants could get the case moved - but it would take some time for that side to prevail - and the whole point of Zain's side is to just to push this thing a couple weeks or whatever so that the wrestle-off doesn't happen before acclimation and Zain is by default on the team at that point) and courts who are sometimes reducing the bar for these types of what used to be extraordinary remedy situations - it is much easier to get these in today's legal milieu, but by no means simple. Using the modified Hand formula they will clearly show the need for immediately relief and the harm from not getting if they ultimately prevailed - so the whole thing will come down to that side showing they are quite likely to prevail on the merits in this sort of mini-trial. 

[headache 100]

So I gather that Zain has a great shot of getting a TRO if Trump comes out for Yainni. Otherwise not.

[Plasmodium 1,113]

5 minutes ago, headache said:

So I gather that Zain has a great shot of getting a TRO if Trump comes out for Yainni. Otherwise not.

Fake news.  Sad!

[NJDan 432]

38 minutes ago, RJChicago said:

Good points everyone. Just had another conversation about this and a TRO of course is the only option. It seems that in situations like this they will have a sort of mini-trial even though no one calls it that, in which Zain/USAW/NLWC/whoever the litigant is has to basically show that they would have a good chance of prevailing on the merits if there were a full trial - which is a fairly high bar. Most/many courts now are apparently using something called a sort of modified Hand formula where they weigh the need for immediate relief (TRO), the harm caused by not granting that immediate relief if their side were to prevail (but then have no remedy because they didn't get relief in time). 

So it is a fairly high bar, but what is working on the side of the side trying to overturn the arbiter's decision and go back to the call on the mat, is that these TROs have apparently become much easier to obtain in the recent legal environment. Apparently, courts are granting them more easily in recent years (and some courts apparently are granting them especially easily) (kind of like the hundreds of nationwide injunctions that have been granted in the last few years by federal courts, even though previously those were an extraordinary remedy) - and with forum shopping (which is a major thing in TROs because if they get a sympathetic court, that court maybe shouldn't have jurisdiction and the defendants could get the case moved - but it would take some time for that side to prevail - and the whole point of Zain's side is to just to push this thing a couple weeks or whatever so that the wrestle-off doesn't happen before acclimation and Zain is by default on the team at that point) and courts who are sometimes reducing the bar for these types of what used to be extraordinary remedy situations - it is much easier to get these in today's legal milieu, but by no means simple. Using the modified Hand formula they will clearly show the need for immediately relief and the harm from not getting if they ultimately prevailed - so the whole thing will come down to that side showing they are quite likely to prevail on the merits in this sort of mini-trial. 

You have no idea what you are talking about. The more you say, the less we know.

[Mphillips 231]

10 minutes ago, NJDan said:

You have no idea what you are talking about. The more you say, the less we know.

Break it down for us NJDan.  I certainly don't know.

[RJChicago 14]

NJDan - I agree with you, I do not know anything about this subject. But these are the words of a litigator - not involved in this matter - who has litigated many high-profile TRO matters in federal courts. I literally just asked him about this and tried to write down his response on here. I also read about the Hand formula, though not in the context of TROs, and I kind of see how this has influenced courts on TRO matters. I'll post some interesting articles I just read about it below. I believe what this litigator was saying is that courts are doing more of these sorts of balancing tests -  the magnitude of harm versus probability of succeeding harm-utility tests - and that though courts don't actually discuss the Hand formula in TRO cases - this sort of equation  - multiplying the likelihood of success in a full-trial by the magnitude of harm if a TRO/emergency relief is not granted - has begun to be used  and that partly explains why many more of these TRO/emergency relief orders have been granted in the last decade or so. Like you said, I do not know much about this though and have to rely on others who do and am trying to report that.

My own prediction, not being an expert, is that it is very unlikely that a court would ever grant a TRO/emergency relief on this, unless they somehow ended up in (picked) the perfect forum that is much more friendly towards these type of claims then most courts are.

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=penn_law_review_online

https://academic.oup.com/lpr/article/5/1/1/990799

[wrestlingnerd 2,361]

I was about to give you kudos for the best troll job in recent memory until I realized you are actually serious.

[whaletail 106]

As credible as the OP's info is (and it sounds very credible), I doubt the NLWC or Zain is pursuing this, and I doubt the matter will actually end up in court.  

Zain knows he needs to focus solely on winning one match; anything else is a distraction.

[NJDan 432]

1 hour ago, RJChicago said:

NJDan - I agree with you, I do not know anything about this subject. But these are the words of a litigator - not involved in this matter - who has litigated many high-profile TRO matters in federal courts. I literally just asked him about this and tried to write down his response on here. I also read about the Hand formula, though not in the context of TROs, and I kind of see how this has influenced courts on TRO matters. I'll post some interesting articles I just read about it below. I believe what this litigator was saying is that courts are doing more of these sorts of balancing tests -  the magnitude of harm versus probability of succeeding harm-utility tests - and that though courts don't actually discuss the Hand formula in TRO cases - this sort of equation  - multiplying the likelihood of success in a full-trial by the magnitude of harm if a TRO/emergency relief is not granted - has begun to be used  and that partly explains why many more of these TRO/emergency relief orders have been granted in the last decade or so. Like you said, I do not know much about this though and have to rely on others who do and am trying to report that.

My own prediction, not being an expert, is that it is very unlikely that a court would ever grant a TRO/emergency relief on this, unless they somehow ended up in (picked) the perfect forum that is much more friendly towards these type of claims then most courts are.

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=penn_law_review_online

https://academic.oup.com/lpr/article/5/1/1/990799

Either your friend is also ignorant or you mangled what he said. For one thing, you cannot just "pick" a  forum. The forum would be determined by where the arbitration was held or the arbitration agreement.

[scribe 1,653]

It’s going to peoples court 

[RJChicago 14]

26 minutes ago, NJDan said:

Either your friend is also ignorant or you mangled what he said. For one thing, you cannot just "pick" a  forum. The forum would be determined by where the arbitration was held or the arbitration agreement.

You sound like you definitely know what you are talking about - so I'm sure your right. I'm enjoying learning about this - so I again just dug into this a little and I just asked someone who knows a lot more about this than me and he said that what you described is absolutely true in the letter of the law but there are more federal judges who are ruling in cases that technically should not be under their jurisdiction and this is a major area of contention. Sometimes the battle about which court a case should be in or whether it is justiciable at all are sometimes fought over for a year or more at the trial court level - with hearings, rulings, appeals, etc. - with both sides spending tons of time fighting about whether a particular court is the proper forum, or whether or 

If it were as cut and dried as their only one proper forum, then their wouldn't be major supreme court cases like the one below that directly weigh in on forum shopping fights, or thousands of pages of law review articles like the one below. Nor would their be a multi-billion dollar industry, patent trolling, which many legal minds say would not have existed (at least in the magnitude that it did) if the plaintiffs couldn't forum shop. Apparently, again maybe this is wrong but this is what I was told, that patent trolls, no matter where they were in the country and regardless of  where the corporate entities were and were the relevant conduct occurred that probably should have dictated which court those proceedings would be in - regardless of all of that stuff - apparently patent troll cases all ended up in the same district court in Texas due to forum shopping by the plaintiffs. Its kind of wild apparently the small town of Marshall, Texas (24,000 people according to the article below) ended up deciding tens of billions of dollars worth of patent cases from all over the country and even all over the world.

 

https://www.nutter.com/ip-law-bulletin/forum-shopping-in-the-eastern-district-of-texas

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-further-curbs-plaintiffs-venue-shopping-with-bristol-myers-ruling-1497913350

https://www.law360.com/articles/1135930/venue-ruling-invites-forum-shopping-pa-appeals-court-told

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3195&context=clr

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/nationwide-injunctions-venue-considerations

 

[tbert 559]

Hook, line and sinker...lol

[MadMardigain 1,017]

Can I sue for the mental anguish this process is causing me via the ridiculous posts I’m being subjected to just to find out any useful information related to the decision.  

Edited August 17 by MadMardigain