A Primer on Emergency Injunctive Relief

MGoLawyer here--commercial litigator for over 20 years. Thought everyone could use some understanding of the basic issues facing The Team.

To get an injunction, UM has to file a complaint (which is the basic pleading that starts any lawsuit) in federal or state court. Then UM simultaneously will file a motion for a "temporary retraining order" ("TRO") and, depending on the court's particular rules/practice, might also file a motion for preliminary injunction ("PI"). The timing of resolving the motions is entirely up to the assigned judge, but generally, a TRO is heard immediately (within hours or days) and lasts (in federal court) 10-14 days. The TRO is meant to freeze everything until the PI hearing is scheduled. The PI hearing can be as short as 2 weeks out, but often, parties agree to push it out a few weeks or months to allow for discovery.

To get a TRO or a PI, the Court balances four factors:

1 - "Likelihood of success on the merits." UM must show that it is LIKELY to win its claim in its Complaint. The court will take evidence (declarations) and sometimes live testimony at a hearing. Legal arguments will include: did the B1G breach a contract (e.g. its own rules) or violate a federal or state law (ehhh probably none applicable) in its actions.

2. "Irreparable harm." UM must show that, absent getting emergency relief, it will suffer harm for which it is not able to be compensated with money damages. That doesn't mean you can't take money for it; it means it would be extremely difficult to compensate the harm with a money award, in part b/c there is no good way to calculate the impact. I think losing your HC when you are competing for a national championship and need to play the #11 and #1 teams in three weeks (plus November Maryland) is, sort of by definition, irreparable harm. And there is also the reputational harm. (I assume Jim will be a named plaintiff so he can assert his own interest in its reputation, on top of UM's reputation.)

3. "Balance of Interests." The court must weight the harm to UM (if there is no injunction) versus the harm to the defendants (if there is an injunction). I think this squarely goes to UM.  There is no continuing sign-stealing; we all know about this. If PSU, UM(NTUM) or OSU are too stupid not to change their damn signs by now, that's on them, not us. Besides, is there any evidence Wyld Stalion wen to Lion/Terp/Buck games this year?

4. "Public Interest." The court must consider if there is an overriding public interest here--e.g., public health, etc. Parties throw around things like "the public expects parties to perform their contracts," that sort of thing. This factor is usually a wash or the court says something in whatever direction it's leaning.

I think the latter 3 factors will all heavily weigh in favor of UM. The key is showing that UM is likely to prove its claim. So what is the claim?  The B1G is acting in contravention of its own rules, so it's a breach of contract claim? So it comes down to the power of the B1G to do whatever it is about to do. Remember, B1G is a private organization. It has discretion to make "business" decisions--even if they are bad ones--like any other company (GM, Ford, Amazon, etc.). That UM doesn't like the decision or would have made a different one is not a basis to challenge it... if the B1G had power to make that decision.

One more point, federal versus state court. To get in federal court, UM must have either (1) a claim of breach of federal law (which, here, seems highly unlikely; contracts are state-law creatures), or (2) the parties must be "completely diverse," meaning all of the states of the plaintiffs must have no overlap with all of the states of the defendants. So UM and Harbaugh will be Michigan residents. To get into federal court, none of the defendants can live in (or, for an organization, be headquartered or incorporated in) Michigan. It's no so clear to me b/c I have no idea how the B1G is incorporated. If it's an entity based on "membershIp" (partnership, for instance, or an LLC), then its a citizen of each state of its membership--and UM certainly would be a member. I just don't know.  If there is no federal jurisdiction, UM has to sue in state court.

Now, where sue? This applies to both federal and state court. It has to be a state that has "personal jurisdiction" over each defendants. That means each defendant must reside in, or have "minimum contacts" with, each state. I suspect whomever UM sues (B1G, Commish, etc.), probably meets that test--e.g. have traveled to Michigan for meetings about this dispute, etc. But a cleaner place to sue is in federal our state court in Illinois (Chicago) where B1G is HQ'd and there can't be any possible dispute about PJ.

Now, one last point. I always tell people: "You get what you paid for, and I wasn't paid for this."