DiBella Entertainment and Headbangers Win Dismissal from Prichard Colon Lawsuit

Today in D.C. Superior Court, Judge John Campbell filed an Opinion granting both defendant promoters DiBella Entertainment (DBE) and Headbangers, Inc. motions to dismiss the negligence claims brought against them in a lawsuit by injured boxer Prichard Colon.

The suit arose from the brain injuries Colon suffered in a boxing match against Terrel Williams in Fairfax, VA on October 17, 2015.   The Complaint alleged that Williams hit Colon with rabbit punches (illegal punches to the back of the head) throughout the fight until Colon fell from a rabbit punch in the seventh round.  The ringside doctor, Dr. Richard Ashby, examined Colon and allowed the fight to continue.  Colon was subsequently knocked down twice in the ninth round and lost on a disqualification.  Colon collapsed after the fight and has been bedridden and in a "vegetative" state since that night.

The Complaint, filed in May 2017, alleged that promoters DBE and Headbangers "owed Prichard a duty of care to hire, appoint, choose, recruit and approve personnel who enforce, instruct, advise and abide by applicable standards of care," and "to ensure that the specific ringside physician was properly trained . . . and skilled to perform the neurological examinations necessary to determine if one of the fighters had suffered a traumatic brain injury."  Plaintiffs also alleged that the promoters failed to "make sure that guidelines, procedures, and protocols were in place to properly prevent and assess bleeding in the brain of one of the boxers..."

Both DBE and Headbangers argued in their motions to dismiss that the bout was conducted under the auspices of the state of Virginia's Boxing Regulations.  They further argued that plaintiff Colon could not establish that the promoters had a duty of care to "hire . . . and approve personnel" and "ensure that the . . . ringside physician was properly trained" because the Regulations bestow those duties on the Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation.

Judge Campbell agreed with DBE and Headbangers arguments stating, the "Regulations are clear that event promoters, such as DBE and Headbangers, are not responsible for ringside protocols or the hiring of a ringside physician.  Both of these duties are entirely the responsibility of the Department.  DBE and Headbangers thus cannot be held liable for breach of a duty they did not possess." 

The Judge further ruled that all claims against DBE and Headbangers were dismissed with prejudice.

See Complaint below:
See DBE Motion to Dismiss:
See Headbangers Motion to Dismiss:
See Opinion of the Court:

Mayweather Ordered To Pay Over $600,000 By SEC For Failing To Disclose ICO Endorsement Compensation

Former pound-for-pound number one boxer Floyd Mayweather reached a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") over his failure to disclose endorsement money he received from three securities offered and sold in Initial Coin Offerings ("ICOs").

According to an SEC Order Instituting Cease-And Desist Proceedings (see below), Mayweather is not "admitting or denying" the allegations against him.  However, the SEC laid out their case in the Order.  The SEC found that:

• From July through September 2017, Mayweather promoted three ICOs on his Instagram, Twitter and Facebook accounts, each with multi-million followers, in exchange for approximately $300,000 in compensation.
• Centra Tech, Inc. ("Centra"), which paid Mayweather for his endorsement, conducted the ICO to raise capital for the "world's first Multi-Blockchain Debit Card and Smart and Insured Wallet" which would supposedly allow people to convert hard-to-spend "cryptocurrencies" into legal tender and spend that money using a "Visa- or MasterCard-backed 'Centra Card.'"  The SEC had filed a separate civil action against the founders of Centra alleging that the ICO was fraudulent.
• Mayweather promoted Centra's and two other ICOs without disclosing that he was being compensated or the amount of compensation.  The lack of disclosure violated Section 17(b) of the Securities Act.

Mayweather was ordered to pay $300,000 in disgorgement, $14,775.67 in prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty of $300,000 to the SEC for transfer to the general fund of the US Treasury.  Mayweather also agreed to forgo receiving any compensation for endorsing any securities for the next three years from the date of the order and to continue to cooperate with the SEC's investigation of the matter.

The NY Times had an interesting feature on Mayweather's activity with the ICOs as it was happening in 2017.

See the SEC Order:

Square Ring Survives Motion to Dismiss in Breach of Contract Suit vs. Eduard Troyanovsky

Interesting issues in a breach of contract case filed by Square Ring, Inc., Roy Jones, Jr.'s promotional entity, against former IBF Junior Welterweight Champion Eduard Troyanovsky in U.S. Federal Court, Northern District of Florida.

The complaint itself is pretty straight forward (see Complaint below).  It alleges, in essence, that Troyanovsky signed a promotional agreement with Square Ring and Salita Promotions, Dmitiry Salita's promotional entity, as co-promoters.  Salita was subsequently bought out by Vlad Hrunov.  Square Ring and Hrunov co-promoted Troyanovsky's bouts until such time as Troyanovsky started participating in bouts promoted by another entity (unnamed in the complaint but initially - Aleksey Stashkov's World Boxing).

In response, Troyanovsky's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction, quash service, and, alternatively, to disqualify counsel (Square Ring CEO John Wirt).  Plaintiff then filed a motion in opposition (see MTD and Opp briefs below). 

There are some interesting issues regarding forum selection clauses, prior material breach and minimum contacts in the briefs.   But what really caught my eye was an issue Troyanovsky's counsel raised for the first time in a Joint Statement of the parties regarding the need for an evidentiary hearing to decide the validity of the forum selection clause (see Joint Statement below).  Counsel raised the argument that Florida's long arm statute regarding personal jurisdiction did not apply because the promotional contract constituted a labor or employment contract - both of which were excluded under the statute.  A finding by the Court that promotional contracts are labor or employment contracts would be interesting precedent.

Judge Rodgers, however, rejected Troyanovsky's argument.  After initially rejecting the argument because it was not raised in the Motion to Dismiss brief and was therefore waived, the Court further stated that even "[i]n the absence of waiver, the Court would find that the Agreement is not a contract '[f]or labor or employment' under Fla. Stat. § 685.101." 

Because the terms "labor" and "employment" were not defined in the statute, the Court looked to how the terms were defined by the common law and the dictionary.  The Court found "Laborer" was defined in Webster's as "a person who does unskilled physical work for wages."  The Court further found that under the common law, "an 'employee' is a person who performs services under the substantial control or direction of an employer."

The Court held that the promotional agreement at issue was "for the promotion of Troyanovsky's skills as a world-class professional boxer, not unskilled work."  The Court further found that Square Ring did not exert sufficient control over Troyanovsky such that he was an employee.  Thus, the promotional agreement was not a contract for labor or employment that would exempt it from the effect of the forum selection clause. 

Ultimately, the Court denied the motion to dismiss, quash service and disqualify counsel, finding for Square Ring on all counts (see the Court's Order below). 

See Complaint below:


See MTD below:


See Opp to MTD below:


See Joint Statement below:


See Order below:

Judge Denies Bobby Hitz Partial Summary Judgment on Tortious Interference with Contract Claim Against Shane Mosley's GoBox Promotions

Shane Mosley (c/o Keith Hinle/Wikimedia Commons)

Federal District Judge Michael Fitzgerald, of the Central District of California, recently denied Chicago promoter Bobby Hitz's promotional company Hitz Entertainment Corporation ("HEC") partial summary judgment on its first cause of action for tortious interference with contract against former three division world champion Shane Mosley and Mosley's promotional company GoBox Promotions, Inc. ("GBP").

HEC filed its complaint in February 2017 alleging that Mosley had poached its fighter, Cruiserweight prospect Dimar Ortuz, to fight on GBP's PPV card in August 2015 that featured Mosley versus Ricardo Mayorga in the main event.  According to the complaint, Mosley had been a participant in a reality TV show called "Knockout" where he was one of three legendary trainers and he was designated to train Ortuz.  As HEC was negotiating with representatives from the show to enable Ortuz's participation, Mosley allegedly promoted an Ortuz bout on the Mosley-Mayorga PPV undercard.  Mosley and GBP also allegedly promoted two fights of Ortuz subsequent to the PPV card, without HEC's consent.  HEC claimed two causes of action, tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective economic relations.

According to HEC's partial summary judgment motion papers, Mosley and GBP initially tried to work with the "Knockout" show's producers to have Ortuz fight in the show's "finale" on NuvoTV as a free TV lead-in to the PPV.  But negotiations allegedly broke down and Mosley and GBP ended up using Ortuz on the televised PPV undercard instead, outside of the "Knockout" program.  HEC's papers further allege that Mosley and GBP were aware (via text messages to both Mosley and his partner at GBP, Trista Pisani) that HEC had a valid promotional agreement with Ortuz and went ahead and put him on their PPV card anyway, in breach of the promotional agreement and without the consent of or compensation to HEC.  HEC also argued that even if they breached the promotional agreement, Ortuz reaffirmed its existence and validity by signing a deal memo with the "Knockout" producers that acknowledged the agreement and by Ortuz posting on Facebook in December 2015 that he was finally free of the agreement.

In their opposition papers, Mosley and GBP argued that HEC waived its claims due to the fact they had breached the promotional agreement.  Mosley and GBP alleged that HEC had not promoted Ortuz in the requisite number of fights in any of the three years of the promotional agreement's term.  Further, Mosley and GBP argued that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding their knowledge of the existence of the promotional agreement (both Mosley and Pisani denied receiving the texts from HEC) and without knowledge there could be no intent to interfere.

Judge Fitzgerald agreed with Mosley and GBP that there was a genuine "dispute of material fact as to whether there was a valid, enforceable contract" when GBP promoted Ortuz on the PPV undercard.  The Court further found that there was not sufficient evidence to find as a matter of law that Mosley or GBP had knowledge of the promotional agreement or the intent to breach it.

See HEC's complaint below:
See Judge Fitzgerald's order:

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: