Monday, September 11, 2017
Multi-District Litigation In Re: Mayweather-Pacquiao PPV Dismissed
On August 25, 2017, in the United States District Court, Central District of California, Judge R. Gary Klausner issued an opinion dismissing all of the claims filed in 26 individual actions and 15 consolidated complaints alleging that Defendants Floyd Mayweather, Mayweather Promotions, LLC, Manny Pacquiao, Top Rank, Inc., Michael Koncz, Bob Arum, Todd DuBeouf and HBO all concealed Pacquiao's shoulder injury and mislead the buying public into paying for the fight that they would not have otherwise purchased.
Judge Klausner ruled that letting these claims stand would "disrupt the nature and integrity of competitive sports." Judge Klausner used the doctrine known as the "license approach" in determining the legal rights of the ticket purchasers. Under this doctrine, "a ticket to a sporting event gives the purchaser 'nothing more than a revocable license' to view what transpires at the ticketed event, regardless of prior promises or representations about the performance."
Judge Klausner held that "a misrepresentation or omission implicates the core of athletic competitions, and therefore does not constitute a cognizable injury to a legally protected interest under the license approach, if it is related to: (A) competitive strategy, or (B) the quality or outcome of competitive performance." Judge Klausner then reasoned that all of the alleged misrepresentations of the Defendants in regards to Pacquiao's injury fell under either competitive strategy or the quality of the performance.
"The Court is sympathetic to the fact that many boxing fans felt deceived by the statements and omissions made by the fight's participants and promoter. The proper remedy for such unscrupulous behavior when it implicates the core of athletic competition, however, is not a legal one. Disappointed fans may demand that fighters be more transparent in the future, lobby their state athletic commissions to impose more stringent pre-fight medical screenings and disclosure requirements, or even stop watching boxing altogether. They may not, however, sustain a class-action lawsuit."
"In this case, Plaintiffs ultimately received what they paid for, namely: the right to view a boxing match between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather, sanctioned and regulated by the Nevada State Athletic Commission. Plaintiffs had no legally protected interest or right to see an exciting fight, a fight between two totally healthy and fully prepared boxers, or a fight that lived up to the significant pre-fight hype."
See Judge Klausner's opinion below:
Presenting the March 2020 Boxing Esq. World Boxing Ratings:
My guest on this podcast is Rick Collins, a founding partner at the law firm of Collins, Gann McCloskey & Barry. Rick practices in the ...
Today in D.C. Superior Court, Judge John Campbell filed an Opinion granting both defendant promoters DiBella Entertainment (DBE) and Headban...
Legal Roundup: Salita Files Letter Requesting Enforcement Of Settlement Agreement Against Big Baby MillerEarlier this week, counsel for Salita Promotions Corp. (SPC) filed a letter with the Court requesting a pre-motion conference in advance of ...