It sounds as if their whole argument, after this case was not taken up by the Supreme Court, is that this is an "opportune case" for the courts to resolve a conflict they say exists among lower courts.addxb2 wrote: ↑Feb 11, 2020Rams submitted an argument against SC decision not to hear the case on Jan 8th. I’m not a lawyer, but the Rams reasoning for SC hearing or overturning the lower court decision seems decent.
I’m not sure what the process looks like now. It hasn’t been distributed to the Feb 21st conference.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 9-672.html
"In reality, courts and commentators have long recognized the confusion surrounding the interplay between the FAA’s equal-footing principle and the “clear and unmistakable” test. This is an opportune case to dispel that confusion once and for all, and to make clear that there is no arbitrability exception to the equal-footing principle."
Is "arbitrability" a word?
I like this title of Section 1. "Courts Are Divided Over The Import Of This Court’s “Clear And Unmistakable” Test For Assigning Questions Of Arbitrability To Arbitrators."
Some of their argument sounds kind of snarky. And if there is some big "opportunity" for the courts to straighten out a conflict that the lawyers say the courts have created, why would the SC see this case as so representative, and so broad, that it should be the case that resolves anything. I would think the courts would just see this as a lame attempt to get a previous unfavorable ruling overturned. I'm not sure the court will even agree that there is some massive conflict involving arbitration or not that needs resolving.
I'm no lawyer either, but if I'm understanding what is going on here, I think this will fail again for Kroenke and the NFL.
