Well that was unexpected. After Jackson seemingly terminated his agreement with Bellator, his situation proceeded in what appeared to be a fairly predictable way. Bellator filed suit alleging that Jackson had breached his exclusive agreement with them, and then asked the court for a preliminary injunction to prevent Jackson from fighting on this weekend's upcoming UFC 186 card. Based on the information about his case released through the media, it seemed inevitable that Jackson would indeed be enjoined from appearing.
It was no surprise when a New Jersey judge granted the injunction, leading to Jackson being removed from his fight against Fabio Maldonado (you can read an analysis of the granted injunction here). But then, low and behold, Jackson's proclamation that he was "not done yet" actually had some merit. After an emergency appeal, an appellate judge overturned the portion of the injunction prohibiting Jackson from fighting on Saturday.
A court of appeals, or appellate court, has the power to listen to appeals of a lower court's decision. The Supreme Court of the United States is the one which people most commonly hear about. In listening to an appeal, the appellate court is merely examining whether the lower court applied the law correctly to the facts at hand, and whether it made the correct legal determinations. The appellate court then has the power to affirm, or overturn the lower court's decision.
This is precisely the process that Jackson undertook in getting himself back on the UFC 186 card. He filed an emergency (short-notice) appeal, which had to be the case as appealing the injunction any time after Saturday would be moot. Now, it's important to realize that the appeal was solely for the injunction itself, and has no bearing on whether or not Bellator or Jackson will ultimately prevail on their pending legal battle. That part of this litigation still needs to be fought out in the lower court. The losing side there can then appeal whatever the ultimate ruling is that the lower court makes.
I'll admit that I was surprised when the appellate court allowed Jackson back on the UFC 186 card. I found Chancery Judge Suter's order granting the injunction to be well thought out and explained. That said, I'm probably not nearly as surprised as Judge Suter herself. One of the measuring sticks by which judges are, well, judged, is their appellate record. That is, what percentage of a judge's cases which are appealed are affirmed by the appellate court versus what percentage is overturned? In using this standard, getting a ruling overturned would count as a detrimental mark. The appellate court is saying that the lower court judge misapplied the law to the facts, and effectively got it wrong.
Appellate Judge John Kennedy wrote a brief, two page opinion (you can see it here via MMAJunkie.com) in letting Jackson back into his UFC bout. In order for a preliminary injunction to be granted, each of the four standards set by law needed to be "clear and convincingly demonstrated." In overturning the injunction, Kennedy only discussed one of the standards which I broke down in my previous analysis: irreparable harm. As that standard was not met, the rest were moot and didn't need to be discussed. Kennedy felt that Bellator's contentions that other fighters would be encouraged to ignore their contracts and that the social sphere would be filled with negative chatter about Bellator was just vague speculation. Because of that, the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction, in this case preventing Jackson from working, was not warranted.
One of the key things to take away here is how extraordinary a remedy the appellate court is viewing the issuing of an injunction. Taking away a person's right to make a living is a pretty big deal, and courts are often loath to do it absent very compelling circumstances. In reading the opinion, we find that Kennedy's analysis in this differs significantly from Suter's. Suter presented some very well thought arguments as to why irreparable harm would be done to Bellator if the injunction were not granted. She pointed out how the harm would go beyond economic loss, or losses that could just be reversed by paying someone a quantifiable amount of money. She pointed out that Jackson was a unique commodity in the fighting world, and the loss of his services would deprive Bellator of a unique asset, all the while boosting the standing of their biggest competitor.
These seem like very valid and fair points for Suter to make. But maybe that is the problem itself: Suter was making them. Kennedy's opinion was very short, but perhaps we can learn more about his reasoning based on what he didn't say in his opinion, as opposed to what he did. Kennedy makes no mention of Suter's reasons or the validity of them in his writing. Rather, he attacks Bellator's given reasons as inadequate to clearly and convincingly demonstrate irreparable harm. It was Bellator's job to present facts and arguments in order to get the injunction granted, not Suter's. While Suter's position seemed perfectly reasonable, it was not a position based on arguments that Bellator themselves made, rather an inference from them. Kennedy merely addressed what Bellator presented, and avoided explicitly calling out Suter in his opinion.
At the end of the day, overturning the lower court's injunction may not have any bearing on whether or not Bellator ultimately prevails in their case. They did, however, suffer big losses in the courts of public opinion and perception. Now that they've lost a fairly publicized legal proceeding, does Bellator really want to continue to fight for an athlete that may be viewed as a UFC fighter they shouldn't have claim to? We'll have to wait and see, but at least for now, the UFC's formerly underwhelming 186 card may have graduated to merely “whelming.”
Michael Bane is an attorney and MMA enthusiast working out of Chicago, Illinois.
DON'T GO YET... WE SUGGEST THESE MMATORCH ARTICLES, TOO!
Jamie Penick, editor-in-chief
(mmatorcheditor@gmail.com)
STAFF COLUMNISTS: Shawn Ennis - Jason Amadi
Frank Hyden - Rich Hansen
Chris Park - Matt Pelkey
Interested in joining MMATorch's writing team? Send idea for a theme to your column (for Specialist section) or area of interest (i.e. TV Reporter) along with a sample of writing to mmatorch@gmail.com.
