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

dragonchild

November 11th, 2023 at 8:42 AM ^

If she's worth even a pinch of salt as a judge she shouldn't give a rat's ass about "national news".  Unfortunately she's elected, so you're probably right.

But thing is, it's not going to matter.  The media has been gleefully making shit up this entire time; they're not going to give an effin' judge any mercy.  The nanosecond this drops, if it's an approved TRO we are going to immediately get drowned in foamy-mouthed rantings from all the excrement-soaked corners of sports media about out-of-control "legislation from the bench" and "activist judges".  If it's denied it'll probably be on technical/jurisdiction grounds ("the B1G isn't breaking any law by being shitheads") but they'll be lustfully screaming that justice was served and Michigan has been struck down by God.  Never mind that the B1G isn't even government; they'll buy it.  People are stuuuuuuupid.

ShadowStorm33

November 11th, 2023 at 8:55 AM ^

The attorney that filed needs to be admitted to the court. Either by being admitted in the state (which grants automatic admission to all state courts in that state), or by being specially admitted for this specific case (pro hac vice). The DC attorneys are almost certainly not admitted in MI, and there’s been no time to file a pro hac motion (plus no judge is going to bother with one after hours unless it’s truly needed, which it isn’t here where M is perfectly capable of hiring a local firm). 
 

in addition, even if WC had a MI admitted attorney, they’re still going to partner with a local firm who’s familiar with the court, the local rules, etc.

TLDR WC is pulling the strings, and the local firm is signing and filing the paper (plus maybe providing some logistical insight). 

Sea.Blue

November 11th, 2023 at 8:37 AM ^

Sorry if I missed this, but has anyone seen the TRO motion itself? The doc posted in the other thread is just the brief in support of the motion. I’d assume the motion itself asks for a ruling by a specified time to give the team sufficient time to know who their head coach is today.

Ryno2317

November 11th, 2023 at 8:38 AM ^

Guys — good news travels fast and it’s been awhile.  The court is either working on a written order — which I doubt — or the decision was already made and emailed to the parties last night.  It’s possible she looked at this and just didn’t think it met the standard.  
 

Sea.Blue

November 11th, 2023 at 8:48 AM ^

A written order is required under the court rules, so it’s entirely plausible the judge is still working on that.

Form and Scope of Injunction. An order granting an injunction or restraining order

(1) must set forth the reasons for its issuance;

(2) must be specific in terms;

(3) must describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the acts restrained; and

(4) is binding only on the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and on those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise.

skifly

November 11th, 2023 at 9:02 AM ^

Curious -  What would happen in the event that: 1) TRO is granted; 2) Harbaugh coaches the game today; but then 3) the court maintain's the B10's position in the subsequent hearing on the TRO?  Would Michigan be forced to vacate the results of the game (at least within the B10's purview... i.e. I understand that the CFP may still independently decide that the game had been played)?

viddy6

November 11th, 2023 at 9:24 AM ^

How much does setting a precedent for future incidents matter to the court?

I am likely reaching but the broader implication is that, if the suspension holds, precedence will state that the B1G can suspend head coaches under “sportsmanship” concerns and three games is the defacto punishment. 

jbuch002

November 11th, 2023 at 9:25 AM ^

Asking lawyers who are commenting on theTRO, are there jurisdictional questions for the Trial Court of Washtenaw County? 

I don't think the State of Michigan has personal jurisdiction over the B10 in Illinois. Any temporary order is limited to the state of Michigan — M may be prevented from doing what they're trying to do in the Trial Court of Washtenaw County. I'd imagine the B10's lawyers are telling the judge assigned to this case the court doesn't have jurisdiction to enforce a TRO on the B10

I'm thinking a Federal Court is 100% where this case should be heard..

03 Blue 07

November 11th, 2023 at 9:59 AM ^

No it is not. And the reasons it can’t be in federal court are laid out in Michigan’s brief and in a post further up this thread by user JBockie (or JBockle). Yes it should be enforceable against the B1G, also, for reasons others have stated in the thread. Scroll up

 

Shorty the Bea…

November 11th, 2023 at 9:37 AM ^

Harbaugh is a public employee of the State of Michigan. His employment is functionally being suspended at that address - whether he travels at times for his job or not. Therefore, his case to lift his suspension can be seen by a judge in the county of record of employment. This is correct. Otherwise, everyone who ever travels for work in a similar situation would always need a federal court.. and what if they work overseas? Do they need TROs there as well? That would be a highly inefficient system.

Also, I am not a lawyer here and am completely typing out of my ass, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night..