Brady et al v. National Football League et al

Filing 100

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO 8TH CIRCUIT by Arizona Cardinals, Inc., Atlanta Falcons Football Club LLC, Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership, Buccaneers Limited Partnership, Buffalo Bills, Inc., Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc., Cinncinnati Bengals, Inc., Cleveland Browns LLC, Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd., Denver Broncos Football Club, Detroit Lions, Inc., Football Northwest LLC, Green Bay Packers, Inc., Houston NFL Holdings LP, Indianapolis Colts, Inc., Jacksonville Jaguars Ltd., Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., Miami Dolphins, Ltd., Minnesota Vikings Football Club LLC, National Football League, New England Patriots, LP, New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC, New York Football Giants, Inc., New York Jets Football Club, Inc., Oakland Raiders LP, Panthers Football LLC, Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, Inc., Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., Rams Football Co, LLC, The, San Diego Chargers Football Co., San Francisco Forty Niners Ltd., Tennessee Football, Inc., Washington Football Inc. (Attachments: # 1 COA - Form A). (Connolly, Daniel)

Appeal Docket No:
_______________
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS – EIGHTH CIRCUIT
APPELLANTS’ FORM A
Appeal Information Form
To be filed with the Notice of Appeal
STYLE OF CASE:

COUNSEL: NAME, ADDRESS, AND
TELEPHONE NUMBER

Tom Brady, et al.,

Jeffrey L. Kessler
David G. Feher
David L. Greenspan
DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
[phone]

Plaintiffs-Appellees

James W. Quinn
Bruce S. Meyer
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
[phone]
Barbara P. Berens
Justi Rae Miller
BERENS & MILLER, P.A.
3720 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
[phone]
Timothy R. Thornton
BRIGGS & MORGAN, P.A.
2200 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
[phone]

Michael D. Hausfeld
Hilary K. Scherrer
HAUSFELD LLP
1700 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
[phone]
Michael P. Lehmann
Jon T. King
Arthur N. Bailey, Jr.
HAUSFELD LLP
44 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
[phone]

vs.

Mark J. Feinberg
Michael E. Jacobs
Shawn D. Stuckey
ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL
& MASON LLP
500 Washington Avenue South
Suite 4000
Minneapolis, MN 55415
[phone]
Daniel S. Mason
ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL
& MASON LLP
44 Montgomery Street
Suite 3400
San Francisco, CA 94111
[phone]
Samuel D. Heins
Vince J. Esades
HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
310 Clifton Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403
[phone]

National Football League, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants

Paul D. Clement
BANCROFT PLLC
1919 M Street, NW
Suite 470
Washington, DC 20036
[phone]
Gregg H. Levy
Benjamin C. Block
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2401
[phone]
Daniel J. Connolly
Aaron D. Van Oort
FAEGRE & BENSON LLP
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
[phone]
David Boies
William A. Isaacson
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armony, NY 10504
[phone]

LIST ISSUES ON APPEAL (For administrative purposes). You may indicate that
this also serves as your statement of issues under FRAP 10(b)(3). ( ) YES (X) No.
(1) Jurisdiction – The Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. withdraws
jurisdiction from the federal courts to issue injunctions in cases involving or
growing out of labor disputes. On March 12, 2011, the NFL clubs locked out their
player-employees after the collective bargaining agreement expired and the players
had walked out of a bargaining negotiation session. On April 25, 2011, the district
court preliminary enjoined the work stoppage. Did the district court exceed its
jurisdiction by issuing the injunction?

(2) Primary Jurisdiction – Plaintiffs predicate their antitrust claims on the ground
that the National Football League Players Association (“NFLPA”)’s purported
disclaimer of interest in further representation of NFL players in collective
bargaining as of 4:00pm on March 11, 2011, instantly ended the applicability of
the nonstatutory labor exemption. The validity of the disclaimer is a necessary, but
not sufficient, predicate to plaintiffs’ claims. Determining whether a union has
validly disclaimed interest is an issue within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
National Labor Relations Board. The district court addressed the validity of the
disclaimer in issuing the injunction. Did the district court err by failing to stay the
motion for a preliminary injunction in deference to the primary jurisdiction of the
NLRB, before which an unfair labor practice charge challenging the disclaimer is
pending?
(3) Non-statutory Labor Exemption – The nonstatutory labor exemption prevents
actions of multiemployer bargaining units (such as the NFL clubs) from being
subjected to antitrust scrutiny unless such actions are “sufficiently distant in time
and in circumstances” from the collective bargaining process, a test that should not
be deemed satisfied without the “detailed views” of the NLRB. Brown v. ProFootball, Inc., 518 U.S. 231, 250 (1996). Did the district court err in finding that
the lockout was sufficiently distant in time and in circumstances from the
collective bargaining process, or in making that finding without any input from the
NLRB?
FOR LEAD COUNSEL ONLY
I have discussed settlement possibilities on appeal with my client.
This appeal is not amenable to settlement. As an appeal taken under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(a)(1), it is excluded from the Court’s prehearing conference program under
Eighth Circuit Rule 33A(a).

Submitted by: s/ Paul D. Clement
April 25, 2011
Signature of Lead Counsel
Date