Skip navigation
Sign up to follow your favorites on all your devices.
Sign up

Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of certain aspects of arbitration ruling in Brian Flores case

While Mike Florio and Chris Simms agree the Dolphins needed a backup for injury-prone Tua Tagovailoa, they evaluate if Mike White is the right guy for the job due to his own health history.

The NFL apparently will be accepting the mixed-bag ruling that sends some claims to arbitration and leaves some in court from the lawsuit filed by Brian Flores, Ray Horton, and Steve Wilks. The plaintiffs have not yet appealed; fore now, they’re asking the presiding judge to take a second look at the ruling.

On Tuesday, the lawyers of the Wigdor LLP firm filed a motion for reconsideration of certain aspects of the ruling.

The 17-page document agues that the presiding judge has overlooked the doctrine of unconscionability, which declares certain contractual terms invalid on their face. The core argument continues to be that the contracts the plaintiffs signed require arbitration conduced by “an obviously biased senior executive” of the NFL -- specifically, the Commissioner.

There’s more than that, but it’s all legal mumbo jumbo aimed at explaining how certain precedents weren’t interpreted by the court in the correct way, according to the lawyers.

This motion suggests that, if unsuccessful, an appeal will follow. And, frankly, at some point that’s the only way to go. As a judge once explained to opposing counsel who was trying a little too hard to win whatever point was being debated outside the presence of the jury during a trial I was handling, “There’s a difference between arguing to the court and arguing with the court.”

Arguably, the plaintiffs at this point are arguing with the court. That said, they’re giving the court a full and fair chance to change her mind before a higher court is asked to review and correct her work.

And one thing judges hate is to have their work reviewed and corrected by a higher court.