Last week, I reported on and provided analysis of the lawsuit filed by University of North Carolina (“UNC”) football student-athlete Michael McAdoo and his request for reinstatement of his athletic eligibility. On July 13, 2011, the parties presented to Court for a temporary injunction hearing. Temporary injunction hearings are important, because a ruling in favor of McAdoo would likely show the judge is favorable to his position, whereas a ruling against McAdoo nearly decimates his likelihood of success. For a plaintiff to succeed in a temporary injunction hearing, a plaintiff must show 1) the existence of a wrongful act; 2) the probable right to recover on a cause of action; 3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury; and 4) the absence of an adequate remedy at law (i.e., monetary damages would not suffice).
McAdoo’s bid for reinstatement was denied yesterday and the Court stated McAdoo “will likely not suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not imposed or issued.” If granted, McAdoo would have been eligible to compete until a final ruling is be made at trial (unless dissolved). This ruling summarily provides that McAdoo will remain ineligible until the trial when McAdoo will be presented with another opportunity to present evidence showing he has been irreparable harmed. Of course, the same judge would likely rule on the issues at trial. It is unlikely that a trial will be scheduled before the conclusion of the regular football season. Although obviously not happy with the ruling, counsel for McAdoo indicated the lawsuit will continue. It is worth noting McAdoo has claims independent of his request for reinstatement (i.e., gross negligence, negligence, and libel), which are factually based and can be presented to a jury for factual determination and possibly result in damages in favor of McAdoo.