|
|
 Porta Potty Pants
Posts: 2600
  
| Red Raider - 2015-12-31 9:39 AM
kboltwkreations - 2015-12-31 7:36 AM azsun - 2015-12-30 9:11 PM I thought I read somewhere that the judge asked them to try to resolve their dispute with a mediator. I could be wrong. Yep I read that too. Cinderella horses posted that on FB early yesterday afternoon.
I suspect the court will delay handing down a ruling for a week or so. If the original filing documents are any indication, I'm sure each party along with other parties have submitted 100's of pages worth of documents arguing case law and statutues that the judge will want to consider before making a final decision. On smaller cases I've worked on, it's not uncommon for it to take 1-2 weeks before a judge makes a final decision so I'm not surprised that the judge said nothing yesterday.
I'm sure their attorneys knew this ... you would think they would have tried to work on this before being ordered to do so. |
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 3815
Location: The best kept secret in TX | I find the Star Telegram article author to be very bal$$y toward the PRCA .... LOL |
|
| |
|
 Toastest with the Mostest
Posts: 5712
Location: That part of Texas | azsun - 2015-12-31 9:53 AM Red Raider - 2015-12-31 9:39 AM kboltwkreations - 2015-12-31 7:36 AM azsun - 2015-12-30 9:11 PM I thought I read somewhere that the judge asked them to try to resolve their dispute with a mediator. I could be wrong. Yep I read that too. Cinderella horses posted that on FB early yesterday afternoon.
I suspect the court will delay handing down a ruling for a week or so. If the original filing documents are any indication, I'm sure each party along with other parties have submitted 100's of pages worth of documents arguing case law and statutues that the judge will want to consider before making a final decision. On smaller cases I've worked on, it's not uncommon for it to take 1-2 weeks before a judge makes a final decision so I'm not surprised that the judge said nothing yesterday. I'm sure their attorneys knew this ... you would think they would have tried to work on this before being ordered to do so.
Most courts have a standing order -- either actually written out as part of the local court rules -- or informally known that mediation is a requirement on any contested case. It's sometimes hard to get a mediator picked without a court order setting down the time period for this to take place and if there is an argument on who is picked as a mediator, the court will order a certain one to be used. It's not a big deal that they were ordered to do this or that the court made an order for it to be done (if one does exist). I'm sure the attorneys probably consulted over who to use and had the court possibly sign an order saying that they will use John Doe and have mediation conducted by month,date,year to have something on record and to help set deadlines. |
|
| |
|
 Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | My $$$$ says they'll come to some agreements and we will still see Trevor, Bobby and Ryan kicking butt in Vegas next year. |
|
| |
|
 Saint Stacey
| Just read where the judge sent it to a 30 day mediate. The cowboys can enter PRCA rodeos. Any money they win will go into a separate account where it will stay until this is figured out. If the ERA wins, they will get the money. If the PRCA wins, the money those in the lawsuit won will go back into the purses and paid out accordingly. |
|
| |
|
Curve Ball
Posts: 2256
Location: Pelham, TN | Bumping this so we can keep up with the results!!! |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 112
| Just out of curiosity, why can someone in the PRCA not file the same right to work deal against the ERA? They have made it very limited to those who can compete in their association have they not? |
|
| |
|
 Fact Checker
Posts: 16572
Location: Displaced Iowegian | miss_n_cinch13 - 2016-01-04 5:57 AM Just out of curiosity, why can someone in the PRCA not file the same right to work deal against the ERA? They have made it very limited to those who can compete in their association have they not?
Making it hard does not limit nor constitute a case of "right to work".....they are having "qualifiers", therefore, anyone can compete to "qualify". |
|
| |
|
I just read the headlines
Posts: 4483
| But didn't ERA say their contestants couldn't compete in the PRCA's Champions Tour? I know nothing about law, is that comparable to the ERA saying the Prca is limiting their right to work? I admittedly have only been following this loosely so I may be totally off base. |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 112
| NJJ - 2016-01-04 9:01 AM
miss_n_cinch13 - 2016-01-04 5:57 AM Just out of curiosity, why can someone in the PRCA not file the same right to work deal against the ERA? They have made it very limited to those who can compete in their association have they not?
Making it hard does not limit nor constitute a case of "right to work".....they are having "qualifiers", therefore, anyone can compete to "qualify".
Okay that makes sense. I am not a fan of the ERA at all, it seems like if the ERA wins this case then it will be difficult to bump the hand chosen competitors out at the finals. They are ones at the top of the PRCA standings year in and year out. How would any 'outsiders' qualify if the ERA owners can still compete at the PRCA rodeos? |
|
| |
|
Saint Stacey
| GLP - 2016-01-04 9:49 AM
But didn't ERA say their contestants couldn't compete in the PRCA's Champions Tour? I know nothing about law, is that comparable to the ERA saying the Prca is limiting their right to work? I admittedly have only been following this loosely so I may be totally off base.
The ERA is owned by the stockholders aka the contestants. It isn't so much the were told they couldn't do the PRCA Challenge rodeos as it was they just came out and said they will not do the Challenge and will focus on the ERA instead of those particular Challenge rodeos. |
|
| |
|
I just read the headlines
Posts: 4483
| SKM - 2016-01-04 5:48 PM
GLP - 2016-01-04 9:49 AM
But didn't ERA say their contestants couldn't compete in the PRCA's Champions Tour? I know nothing about law, is that comparable to the ERA saying the Prca is limiting their right to work? I admittedly have only been following this loosely so I may be totally off base.
The ERA is owned by the stockholders aka the contestants. It isn't so much the were told they couldn't do the PRCA Challenge rodeos as it was they just came out and said they will not do the Challenge and will focus on the ERA instead of those particular Challenge rodeos.
Oh, ok thanks for clarifying.  |
|
| |
|
Nut Case Expert
Posts: 9305
Location: Tulsa, Ok | Sadly the PRCA's new bylaw does not effect just the ERA shareholders. They are forcing PRCA cardholders who may happen to be directors of some small regional rodeo associations to either resign from those positions or forfeit their PRCA cards. |
|
| |
|
 Am I really the Weirdo?
Posts: 11181
Location: Kansas | SC Wrangler - 2016-01-04 7:10 PM Sadly the PRCA's new bylaw does not effect just the ERA shareholders. They are forcing PRCA cardholders who may happen to be directors of some small regional rodeo associations to either resign from those positions or forfeit their PRCA cards.
Exactly. Some associations are having trouble recruiting new directors to replace outgoing ones because of the PRCA's new rules. |
|
| |
Folks on-line