The James Wiseman news ruined my Friday evening. It doesn’t get more ominous than this:
First, I’m a Memphis fan. This includes the University of Memphis, the basketball team, the football team, the people of Memphis, and the city itself.
(Side Note: As a Memphian For Life, how awesome was it to see my Memphis people representing on twitter last night? Don’t mess with Memphis.)
Second, I’m a commercial litigator, and, here I was, thinking through issues of complex legal procedure, exactly 45 minutes before I was planning to watch James Wiseman play basketball.
But, then, some exciting news:
So, the Shelby County Chancery Court granted a Verified Complaint filed by James Wiseman, represented by Lesline Ballin, that requested a Temporary Restraining Order.
Story over, right? Not at all.
Legal analysis to follow:
Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 65 controls here. Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 65.03 provides, in part, that a court “may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney” when “an affidavit or verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition [.]”
Here, this TRO was entered without notice to the NCAA. The NCAA didn’t have an opportunity to respond with factual or legal analysis…or even a one page “We Object!” filing.
The Shelby County Chancery Court simply reviewed the filed pleadings to make sure that the Verified Complaint, if assumed to be true, connected all the dots to satisfy the elements for getting a TRO issued. In a way, it’s just a matter of being good at paperwork at this stage.
And it helps if you probably have the Judge’s cell phone number.
Don’t get me wrong; it’s still savvy lawyering. Courts refer to any relief under Rule 65 as “extraordinary relief.” It’s a big deal, and a strong move by Memphis and Ballin.
But there is a long road ahead, with the first test coming up soon.
TROs only last 15 days. Under Rule 65.03(3), TROs have a limited life; they only last 15 days, unless they are extended by the Court. That’s the reason for the low proof threshold; TROs are designed to be temporary remedies.
The real fight will be over the Temporary Injunction. Under Rule 65.04, the court will replace the TRO with a Temporary Injunction, which is designed to provide longer injunctive relief to the plaintiff while the litigation proceeds.
Under Rule 65.04, a “temporary injunction may be granted during the pendency of an action if it is clearly shown by verified complaint, affidavit or other evidence that the movant’s rights are being or will be violated by an adverse party and the movant will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage pending a final judgment in the action, or that the acts or omissions of the adverse party will tend to render such final judgment ineffectual. “
In deciding whether to grant the temporary injunction, the court will apply a “four-factor test: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to plaintiff if the injunction is not granted; (2) the balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction would inflict on the defendant; (3) the probability that plaintiff will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.”
Here, James Wiseman’s case will rise and fall on item # 3, and the NCAA will want a mini-trial on the violation. Wiseman should have a fairly good argument on items 1 and 2, since he’ll lose valuable chunks of his college career if he has to sit out.
If I had to bet, I’d think a judge would let him play, while the matter is being litigated.
But, what Court will decide? There’s no way this matter stays in Shelby County Chancery Court.
Despite what Bluff City Law says (i.e. where every case they handle is in the Shelby County Courthouse), this case will be removed to federal court.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a case “may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” Here, the District Court for the Western District Courts of Tennessee will likely get this case, unless the NCAA both removes the matter to district court and then asks for a change of venue (to a different district court in the US) at the same time.
Given the time challenges here, I’d bet the matter would stay in Memphis’ district courts.
There are a number of reasons a defendant would remove this. For one, a state court judge is popularly elected, and, while judges are generally not biased, an elected judge would face great public pressure from a rabid fan base. District Court judges are lifetime appointees by the President, and they are perceived to be free from bias.