TRO Case Summary. No indication whether TRO granted

Submitted by Imjesayin on November 11th, 2023 at 5:10 AM

Here is a screen shot of the case summary from the court’s website regarding Michigan’s Petition for a Preliminary Injunction and emergency request for a Temporary Restraining Order. 

We now have a Case Number: 23-001419-CB. But there’s no indication of how the court ruled or any documents imaged from what I can find. 

For updates, go to the court’s search page here: https://tcweb.ewashtenaw.org/PublicAccess/default.aspx

CarrIsMyHomeboy

November 11th, 2023 at 5:15 AM ^

I believe this has been posted a dozen times throughout the night, but I don’t mind +1ing you as we are brothers F5ing the same site.

I started around 9pm and, disappointingly, do not believe the “Events and Orders of the Court” have received a new addition even once during that span.

bluebyyou

November 11th, 2023 at 5:38 AM ^

That is what I have observed also...a whole lot of nothing.

I posted a link to the case last evening.  I found the case by searching on the date field - it was the only entry, not surprisingly because the Court was closed yesterday and this was a TRO.

My hope is that the judge was taking time to look at the facts thoroughly.  It is a bit hard to not see the world through maize and blue glasses but to the extent I have objectivity on the issue before the Court, I still feel the odds are favorable.

Bluesince89

November 11th, 2023 at 9:44 AM ^

Yea, there are just some things I would not do, especially when you're just local counsel and advising on the local practices and procedures. It's not a billing bonanza. Too much of a reputational hit and I don't agree with it. Even if I was primary, I would not take it. 

LSA91

November 12th, 2023 at 1:19 PM ^

Nick, if you could pass a suggestion to Dave, I would love to see the B1G argue that there is time for a PI hearing instead of TRO because Maryland is currently so bad that having to play them without your head coach does not constitute irreparable injury.

It would be hilarious, and is at least a colorable argument, as the lawyers say.

Don

November 11th, 2023 at 5:16 AM ^

Given how many insane court rulings on non-sports issues I’ve seen in this country over the last 20 years, getting the request for the TRO turned down wouldn’t shock me at all.

Kel Varnsen

November 11th, 2023 at 5:33 AM ^

Reaching back into law school a bit here, so apologies if it’s incorrect:

But we may not see a decision on the docket because we filed ex parte and I don’t think the non-moving party is entitled to notice of the decision for the TRO. 
 

Njia

November 11th, 2023 at 5:43 AM ^

Yeah, I was thinking much the same thing. Without a judicial order to show the officials, he can't prove that he's entitled to be there.

There's also another possibility: Penn State refuses to recognize any judicial order from a court in Michigan. That's when this would go completely plaid.

Kel Varnsen

November 11th, 2023 at 5:49 AM ^

That’s something I haven’t been able to figure out - why they went state court here. The request for TRO we footnote that Illinois law (relevant because Big HQ there) on TROs is essentially the same. But that’s a civil procedure / choice of law aspect of this I can’t wrap my head around. 
 

inital thought was that by filing in state court we add the task of removal to the Big Ten’s to-do list. But curious for what other mgolawyers think

Vlad the Inhaler

November 11th, 2023 at 6:56 AM ^

Right. The Big Ten is an unincorporated association, and for diversity purposes, unincorporated associations are the citizens of every state in which they have a member. In other words, though headquartered in Illinois, the Big Ten is a citizen of Michigan (and every other state with a Big Ten member). Which means there's no basis for diversity jurisdiction, AND that the Big Ten has no argument that it's not subject to jurisdiction in Michigan state court.

EGD

November 11th, 2023 at 6:12 AM ^

If you file in Washtenaw County you give yourself a decent chance at drawing a judge with season tickets.

It’s not certain there are grounds for removal. I haven’t read the actual complaint but I imagine their claims are various versions of breach-of-contract and possibly other state law theories (equity/bad faith, maybe some kind of tortious interference claim). Even if there is a federal claim available, M might have chosen not to bring that claim if they prefer to litigate in state court.

A Michigan judge can still apply Illinois law. A forum selection clause might require the case to be filed in a particular court, but a choice of law clause just means the controlling statutes and judicial opinions are those from the specified jurisdiction (which can be different than the location where the case is filed).

dbockle

November 11th, 2023 at 8:30 AM ^

There are two plaintiffs here: the University/Regents and Jim Harbaugh. The University of Michigan is a state government entity. State governments are not citizens of any state, they *are* the state. So there is no diversity of citizenship here because the University is a non-diverse party. Therefore the Big Ten cannot remove the case (or, rather, it would be remanded if they do).

Without diversity of citizenship, the only possible basis for removal would be federal question jurisdiction. But the complaint raises exclusively state law claims, so there is no federal question. Therefore removal is unlikely or, if it occurs, would likely result in remand to state court.

dbockle

November 11th, 2023 at 9:25 AM ^

That is for when a state sues another state. Here we do not have that. We have the state of Michigan (the University/Regents) and a citizen of Michigan (Harbaugh) suing a citizen of another state (the Big Ten). So there is no basis for invoking the exclusive original jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court. That could only happen if, for example, the state of Michigan sued the state of Illinois or something.

bluebyyou

November 11th, 2023 at 6:08 AM ^

Michigan is a team with real loyalties to Harbaugh.  Remember JJ's "Free Harbaugh" shirt in the first game of the season?

It would not shock me if the TRO was granted and Penn State refused to accept it, Michigan might walk off the field as Harbaugh was being removed, with emphasis on "might."  How much would that cost Fox and everyone and everything downstream?

Talk about a tire fire!

Perkis-Size Me

November 11th, 2023 at 6:46 AM ^

With Harbaugh being the uber-competitor that he is, something tells me he would not want his team taking that kind of action. 

That would essentially mean Michigan forfeits the game, Penn State wins, a result they will happily agree to. All of Michigan’s goals go right out the window if they walk off the field. 

Red is Blue

November 11th, 2023 at 8:40 AM ^

Not understanding how PSU could refuse to recognize a TRO.  How does PSU have any authority to determine who is on Michigan's sideline?  Could they simply not allow Harbaugh to enter the stadium?  If so, on what grounds?  If they don't have to have grounds, then could Michigan simply not allow entrance for key OSU players in 2 weeks?