Sheilla Dingus @SheillaDingus
25 Jan 20 • 13 tweets • SheillaDingus/status/1221046703731748866

Two #NFL examples come to mind:
First, in Charles Dimry's disability case, Judge Donato
found an abuse of discretion and remanded the case back
to the Plan with instructions to correct.
Sheilla Dingus
@SheillaDingus

Unfortunately, I'm seeing more and more of this type of behavior:
(Not Judge Easterbrook's but the Immigration Judges)
Judge Easterbrook Goes Ballistic On Immigration Judges
Ignoring Express Order abovethelaw.com/2020/01/judge-… via
@JosephPatrice
Judge Easterbrook Goes Ballistic On Immigr…
Seventh Circuit is not having any of this.
abovethelaw.com

12:03 PM - Jan 25, 2020
See Sheilla Dingus's other Tweets

Dimry is back in court because the Plan failed to follow those instructions, stating
that it "disagreed" with Judge Donato.
His case is now before a magistrate judge that absurdly seems oblivious since
magistrates serve at the pleasure of district court judges.
Judge Donato should take charge and issue sanctions, lest the behavior continue
unabated.
The second #NFL example is in the Concussion Settlement, in which Judge Brody
has tap-danced around a Third Circuit mandate regarding a settlement funder
decision.
She has partially complied with the Third Circuit in that she is allowing funders to
take players to arbitration and upholding the arbitration awards....BUT...
She is still treating (or at least was until Thrivest petitioned the Third Circuit for
mandamus) all funder advance agreements as prohibited assignments, contrary to
the Third Circuit's precedential opinion.
She managed (with the help of Orran Brown and Chris Seeger) to have the writ of
mandamus denied, in that she issued an order for Brown to "clarify" the procedures
for dealing with settlement advances.

 No clarification has been issued in the two months since, and any awards in which
players have a funding arrangement have been held up in a virtual purgatory awaiting
the "clarification."
The rules that need "clarifying" clearly do not follow the Third Circuit mandate, yet
inexplicably, the circuit judges gave the district court a very lenient benefit of the
doubt in denying mandamus.
They should have instead, pulled a "Judge Easterbrook" and going a step further,
applied sanctions. While her actions might appear favorable to players, they are
anything but, in that interest continues to accrue as the district court decides the next
cat and mouse maneuver...
And players will eventually be compelled to arbitration, in which precedent indicates
that the arbitrator will rule in favor of the funder, holding them fully liable for
repayment of the loan plus interest AND attorney fees and arbitration costs.
When I first started blogging on #sportslaw I was told that district court judges never
defy appellate mandates but I'm finding this to be less reliable than it once was. I'm
curious, @JosephPatrice did the immigration judges finally comply?
@threadreaderapp unroll

•••