The good news continues to roll in for Ezekiel Elliott. After being ruled eligible to play thanks to a temporary restraining order, Elliott went out and set a career-high for yardage in a blowout victory over the San Francisco 49ers. On Monday, he'll wake up to more good news, as he's going to be allowed to play for at least one more game before learning his suspension fate.
udge Katherine Failla of the Southern District of New York, has denied the NFL's request to expedite the process and bypass another injunction hearing, sticking to the date set, 10/30 at 5 p.m. ET.
<article class="MediaCard MediaCard--mediaForward customisable-border" data-scribe="component:card" dir="ltr"> View image on Twitter
</article> Follow
Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL
BREAKING: Judge Failla rejects NFL attempt to speed up #Zeke case. Will hold injunction hearing on 10/30 at 5 pm
<time class="dt-updated" datetime="2017-10-23T11:24:38+0000" pubdate="" title="Time posted: October 23, 2017 11:24:38 (UTC)">7:24 AM - Oct 23, 2017</time>
The original time was set for 10/30 10 a.m., prior to the NFL's request. The Cowboys are scheduled to play Washington on Sunday, October 29.
Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL 5 pm scheduling of injunction hearing suggests Judge Failla in trial that day. Also means that PI hearing may not start on time.
<time class="dt-updated" datetime="2017-10-23T11:35:18+0000" pubdate="" title="Time posted: October 23, 2017 11:35:18 (UTC)">7:35 AM - Oct 23, 2017</time>
After Judge Paul Crotty granted a temporary restraining order allowing Elliott to play Sunday against the 49ers, Judge Fallia will now decide whether or not the Cowboys running back can play the remainder of the season.
Elliott played the first five games of the season under an injunction exactly like what he received from Crotty. In Texas, Judge Amos Mazzant found there were definitive questions about the fundamental fairness of the process the NFL took to suspend Elliott.
Crotty's decision was very much aligned with that of Judge Mazzant, finding serious issues with the process the NFL undertook to suspend Elliott and then upholding the decision after appeal. This was the third federal court that questioned the appeals process.
It is believed by some in the legal circle that the way Crotty wrote his decision will basically outline Failla's path to granting Elliott the ability to play out the 2017 season. From Amy Dash:
The Judge said in his opinion (as a wink wink to the other Judge) that the standard for a temporary restraining order is the same as a permanent injunction (which is true). Meaning this Judge is basically saying to the returning Judge, something like this, "well, if it were me I would grant it long term cause I already decided he met the standard." Judges like to respect each other, especially ones that are colleagues in the same courthouse. So the vacationing Judge will likely grant the permanent injunction. Even more important, the stand-in Judge put another layer of protection for Zeke by citing the Brady case as precedent for the fact that NY district courts recognize that athletes who miss games will suffer irreparable harm because they basically can never get back that opportunity to achieve in that game and it affects their entire career and legacy. It's not a loss that money can fix. This means he's saying to the returning Judge and even the appellate Judges, something like this, "listen, this is an established standard here…an athlete who has games on the line shouldn't be suspended until the case is heard when there's a there there."
udge Katherine Failla of the Southern District of New York, has denied the NFL's request to expedite the process and bypass another injunction hearing, sticking to the date set, 10/30 at 5 p.m. ET.
<article class="MediaCard MediaCard--mediaForward customisable-border" data-scribe="component:card" dir="ltr"> View image on Twitter
</article> Follow
Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL BREAKING: Judge Failla rejects NFL attempt to speed up #Zeke case. Will hold injunction hearing on 10/30 at 5 pm
<time class="dt-updated" datetime="2017-10-23T11:24:38+0000" pubdate="" title="Time posted: October 23, 2017 11:24:38 (UTC)">7:24 AM - Oct 23, 2017</time>
The original time was set for 10/30 10 a.m., prior to the NFL's request. The Cowboys are scheduled to play Washington on Sunday, October 29.
Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL 5 pm scheduling of injunction hearing suggests Judge Failla in trial that day. Also means that PI hearing may not start on time.
<time class="dt-updated" datetime="2017-10-23T11:35:18+0000" pubdate="" title="Time posted: October 23, 2017 11:35:18 (UTC)">7:35 AM - Oct 23, 2017</time>
After Judge Paul Crotty granted a temporary restraining order allowing Elliott to play Sunday against the 49ers, Judge Fallia will now decide whether or not the Cowboys running back can play the remainder of the season.
Elliott played the first five games of the season under an injunction exactly like what he received from Crotty. In Texas, Judge Amos Mazzant found there were definitive questions about the fundamental fairness of the process the NFL took to suspend Elliott.
Crotty's decision was very much aligned with that of Judge Mazzant, finding serious issues with the process the NFL undertook to suspend Elliott and then upholding the decision after appeal. This was the third federal court that questioned the appeals process.
It is believed by some in the legal circle that the way Crotty wrote his decision will basically outline Failla's path to granting Elliott the ability to play out the 2017 season. From Amy Dash:
The Judge said in his opinion (as a wink wink to the other Judge) that the standard for a temporary restraining order is the same as a permanent injunction (which is true). Meaning this Judge is basically saying to the returning Judge, something like this, "well, if it were me I would grant it long term cause I already decided he met the standard." Judges like to respect each other, especially ones that are colleagues in the same courthouse. So the vacationing Judge will likely grant the permanent injunction. Even more important, the stand-in Judge put another layer of protection for Zeke by citing the Brady case as precedent for the fact that NY district courts recognize that athletes who miss games will suffer irreparable harm because they basically can never get back that opportunity to achieve in that game and it affects their entire career and legacy. It's not a loss that money can fix. This means he's saying to the returning Judge and even the appellate Judges, something like this, "listen, this is an established standard here…an athlete who has games on the line shouldn't be suspended until the case is heard when there's a there there."
