Court Opinion

ID: 9705250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:00:39.926526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:09.247114
License: Public Domain

JOHNSTONE, Justice,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent from the majority’s Opinion and Order granting CR 65.09 relief to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). In my opinion, the NCAA has not demonstrated “extraordinary cause” justifying such relief.
CR 65.09 provides in pertinent part:
(1) Any party adversely affected by an order of the Court of Appeals in a proceeding under Rule 65.07 or Rule 65.08 may within five (5) days after the date on which such order was entered, move the Supreme Court to vacate or modify it. The decision whether to review such order shall be discretionary with the Supreme Court. Such a motion will be entertained only for extraordinary cause shown in the motion.
Emphasis added.
The review provided by this rule is discretionary and entertained only for extraordinary cause. In past cases dealing with the extraordinarily high threshold of “extraordinary cause,” we have considered whether the trial court considered carefully the requirements for issuing injunctive relief set out in the seminal case of Maupin v. Stansbury, Ky.App., 575 S.W.2d 695 (1978). They are: (1) has the plaintiff shown an irreparable injury; (2) are the equities in plaintiffs favor, considering the public interest, harm to the defendant, and whether the injunction will merely preserve the status quo; and (3) does the complaint present a substantial question?
In the case before us, the trial judge conducted a thirteen hour hearing and determined that the Maupin elements had been met. A panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals presided over two and one-half hours of oral argument, considered exten*91sive memoranda, and concluded that the trial judge’s findings were not clearly erroneous, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Despite the majority’s acknowledgment of the deferential standard under which appellate courts review circuit court determinations as to temporary injunctive relief, the opinion criticizes the trial court for abusing its discretion by “(1) substituting its judgment for that of the NCAA on the question of Lasege’s intent to professionalize; (2) finding that the NCAA has no interest in this case which weighs against injunctive relief; and (3) declaring NCAA Bylaw 19.8 invalid.”
First, it goes without saying that a trial court must do an appropriate amount of fact finding in determining whether a party is entitled to injunctive relief. Even a cursory review of the trial court’s detailed findings reveals that the trial judge considered the evidence presented and all relevant factors before making the initial conclusions necessitated by proceedings involving injunctive relief. I would agree that there has been a substitution of judgment in this case, but it has been the majority substituting its judgment for the trial judge.
Second, the majority complains that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that the NCAA has no interest in this case which weighs against injunctive relief. Despite repeated reviews of the trial court’s findings and order, this writer can locate no such finding. Indeed, the opinion sets out thoroughly the positions and arguments espoused. Simply put, the trial judge did not agree with the NCAA. — the majority does.
Finally, the provision of the trial court’s order dealing with NCAA Bylaw 19.8 states:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the NCAA and its members are hereby ordered to take no action to prevent or interfere with the University of Louisville’s ability to abide by this Order by attempting to enforce NCAA Bylaw 19.8.
Findings and Order Granting Injunctive Relief Order, 2000-CI-7609 at 9 (Jefferson Circuit Court entered December 20, 2000) (emphasis added).
I believe that one could reasonably conclude from a reading of this provision that it applies only during the period of the injunctive relief. Regardless, the majority opinion overrules Kentucky High School Athletic Association v. Hopkins County Board of Education, Ky.App., 552 S.W.2d 685 (1997), and then rules that injunctive relief prohibiting a voluntary athletic association from seeking agreed-upon restitu-tionary sanctions is inappropriate. Such action, in my opinion, is unwarranted and premature.
The primary fallacy of the majority’s opinion revolves around its proposition that cases involving voluntary athletic associations are more troubling than all other eases involving injunctive relief. While they may “pose special difficulties,” most cases seeking injunctive relief are “invariably time sensitive” that place trial judges in the position of having to “make significant decisions with less-than-complete information.” It is easy to conclude in this case, as did the trial judge, that the NCAA’s ruling did not have evidentiary support. The trial court was presented with substantial evidence to conclude that the complaint raised a substantial question, that the NCAA treated Lasege differently from other athletes, that the NCAA failed to appropriately consider mitigating evidence, and that the arbitrary actions of the NCAA posed a risk of irreparable injury to the plaintiff.
*92Today, the majority charts new ground for cases involving voluntary athletic associations like the NCAA. Longstanding precedent regarding the propriety of injunc-tive relief is ignored and a special class is produced by this holding. I would deny the relief requested and return this case for further proceedings to the trial court where it belongs.
LAMBERT, C.J., WINTERSHEIMER, J., join this dissenting opinion.