Earlier this month, Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein denied Defendants World of Boxing (WOB) and Alexander Povetkin's Motion to Compel production of emails from Plaintiff Deontay Wilder's attorney John Wirt.
The Court held that the emails, all dated May 25, 2016, were attorney work product and therefore privileged communications that Wilder was entitled to withhold. The emails had been inadvertently produced to Defendants in the course of discovery, but when Defendants tried to use them as exhibits at deposition, Wilder's attorneys invoked the "claw back" provision of the protective order that the parties had agreed to.
The emails in question were either sent by Wirt, who was Wilder's representative in negotiations, or were sent in response to Wirt's email. Wirt's original email analyzed WOB's mid-May explanation for Povetkin's positive test for Meldonium and discussed possible responses to it. Because Wirt's email was prepared in anticipation of litigation and was discussed amongst Wilder's promoter and manager, the Court determined that these emails qualified as attorney work product and Wilder could withhold them. Thus, Defendants' Motion to Compel production was denied.
There are dueling summary judgment motions pending filed by each party that I've covered in previous articles here and here. The world awaits District Judge Andrew Carter's decision.
See Opinion below:
Showing posts with label John Wirt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Wirt. Show all posts
Thursday, March 22, 2018
Monday, February 19, 2018
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:
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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Boxing Esq. Podcast #76 - Erik Magraken
My guest on the podcast is Erik Magraken, a managing law partner at McIsaac & Company in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, who has don...
