Red Raider - 2016-09-13 5:20 PM Thoughts?  WPRA was stupid in making the rule at this time with the ERA failing so bad.  They've now possibly opened themselves up to liability that the PRCA is still facing under the anti-trust/competition suit the ERA let go but isn't barred from refiling again.  All those Plaintiffs now have proof that another association cannot survive because of PRCA dominance in the field due to the ERA failing so badly and that's exactly what the Court was willing to entertain if presented with some concrete evidence.  Well, the evidence is arguably there if anybody wants to refile.  WPRA should have stayed out of it another year and waited to see if the suit was going to be revived before doing something stupid to get them caught up in the litigation.   

TXBO - 2016-09-14 12:25 PM I respect your opinion as an attorney  You're probably right about it being an unnecessary risk.  However, I think it's a very minimal risk here.  I'd like to hear a well thought out argument for the ERA.  Seems like the judge didn't think they had much of an argument either.   Their only hope would be to find an attorney with a better argument.

sodapop - 2016-09-14 8:30 PM  Bobby Mote (in person) and Fallon Taylor (by phone from Pendelton) were just on the Western Sports Weekly Show on RFDTV. They both spoke about the ERA next year. According to them, 2017 is still a go. Bobby said the 2017 dates would be announced later in the fall.

NJJ - 2016-09-14 8:54 PM When did Randy Bernard jump on board with them? I thought that he left the American to work for Garth Brooks.........

 http://eraprorodeo.com/elite-rodeo-athletes-make-changes-to-deliver-exceptional-rodeo-product/

NJJ - 2016-09-14 8:54 PM When did Randy Bernard jump on board with them? I thought that he left the American to work for Garth Brooks.........



 http://eraprorodeo.com/elite-rodeo-athletes-make-changes-to-deliver-exceptional-rodeo-product/

miss_n_cinch13 - 2016-09-15 9:34 AM Planning for the 2017 ERA Tour is under way. Bernard says that one change fans will notice is that some ERA athletes will relinquish their stock in the ERA so that they can compete anywhere they want. “It is ERA’s first priority to take care of its cowboys, sponsors and fans. We want the best rodeo athletes to showcase their talent everywhere. When there is an ERA event we want fans to know that the best in the world are guaranteed to be at each performance. Whether the athletes own stock or not, it does not change their commitment to the ERA,” said Bernard.



Based on this statement, wouldn't it seem like some more of the ERA people will let go of their shares to compete in both associations rather than pursue/continue the lawsuit maybe?

NJJ - 2016-09-15 9:54 AM


I wonder what would happen if the ERA owners just sold their stock to a family member (Just an example.....suppose Trevor sold his stock to Roy Cooper)....what could the PRCA do then?  

NJJ - 2016-09-15 9:54 AM I wonder what would happen if the ERA owners just sold their stock to a family member (Just an example.....suppose Trevor sold his stock to Roy Cooper)....what could the PRCA do then?  

miss_n_cinch13 - 2016-09-15 12:13 PM I would say they couldn't do anything if that's what some of the ERA people do. That would be too picky in rules for the PRCA/WPRA to try to work around that scenario. I wonder if some will drop their shares and the ERA all together? Matt Shiozawa is one I can think of that relinquished his shares but now is no longer on the ERA rooster.

1DSoon - 2016-09-15 12:34 PM  Shane gave his shares back. 



Roping on both sides



 

Red Raider - 2016-09-14 6:34 PM The argument and attorney was sound -- it was the evidence that was lacking in being an actual thing versus a projected probability or possible outcome.  The ERA was saying it would be hampered, the Judge said maybe or maybe not -- come back with evidence and I'll reconsider.  Well, the ERA arguably has the evidence now that they can't make a go of things and could possibly pin that on the PRCA.  Granted, the PRCA would argue that the ERA was it's own worst enemy in how they PR'd their way into the whole mess and that people just aren't interested in their format -- things not the PRCA's fault.  It could go either way but the possibility of a suit is still out there.  WPRA had nothing to lose by staying out of it another year. 

sodapop - 2016-09-14 8:30 PM  Bobby Mote (in person) and Fallon Taylor (by phone from Pendelton) were just on the Western Sports Weekly Show on RFDTV. They both spoke about the ERA next year. According to them, 2017 is still a go. Bobby said the 2017 dates would be announced later in the fall.

NJJ - 2016-09-14 8:54 PM When did Randy Bernard jump on board with them? I thought that he left the American to work for Garth Brooks.........



 http://eraprorodeo.com/elite-rodeo-athletes-make-changes-to-deliver-exceptional-rodeo-product/

TXBO - 2016-09-15 5:02 PM Alway a possibility of a future suit but here's exactly what the judge said:



Lynn ruled, “Plaintiffs have not made a clear showing that they will suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction, nor that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.”





Sounds like the judge didn't think it was much of an argument either.  She basically said two things:

1) Like you mention, not enough evidence for an injuction.

2) The argument is not likely to succeed.



 

Red Raider - 2016-09-16 11:13 AM You forgot this part of what the Judge also said and why it was ultimately the ERA dismissing it's own suit (versus them being "poured out on the merits" by the Court) has ended it so far.  The argument and the suit is very much still valid.  If anything the Judge saved ERA from bringing a suit that wasn't ready just yet (unripe in legal terms) from being brought and them not being able to sue later on when they really had a better case that would stand up better under legal theories and factual evidence: 

Lynn had ruled that ERA shareholders could compete in PRCA rodeos in January and early February while she was studying the motion for a preliminary injunction. Lynn specifically said in her ruling on the injunction that the ERA's lawsuit against the PRCA could continue, and she denied the PRCA's motion to dismiss the original lawsuit.
"Plaintiffs have sufficiently and plausibly pled the existence of monopoly power" in arguments against the PRCA, she wrote.
 

TXBO - 2016-09-16 12:50 PM ] Yes, she did.  And as an attorney you know that that is the extremely low bar in order to let this law suit even proceed.  It proceeded the evidence (or lack thereof) presented for the preliminary injuction at which time the judge said they are not likely to suceed.  

Red Raider - 2016-09-16 1:50 PM The remarks about it not likely to succeed were based upon the evidence at the time -- which is not the same now.  They have something now when they didn't then.  All they had then was the possibility/probability of it happening.  It's happening right now.  Big difference.  The Judge did them a favor by not granting the injunction and hinting that they didn't have enough evidence when they filed suit but gave them the affirmation they were possibly on the right track.  If the ERA didn't dismiss, they could have faced going to court on a Motion for Summary Judgment, they wouldn't have evidence enough to defeat it and the suit would have been dismissed under those theories and parties for good.  



Everybody thinks the ERA lost that day because of how the media and the PRCA portrayed it but they actually won in many ways.  They got the benefit of knowing what the Judge was thinking, how the Judge viewed the evidence at the time and how the Judge was going to rule on the existing evidence = which was not in favor of the ERA.  The Judge basically said come back later when you have more.  Now they have more to go back if they wanted.