Earlier this week, counsel for Salita Promotions Corp. (SPC) filed a letter with the Court requesting a pre-motion conference in advance of a potential motion by SPC for an Order to enforce non-disparagement provisions of the Settlement Agreement entered into between SPC and Jarrell "Big Baby" Miller (Miller).
This case was originally brought by SPC (under the corporate name Star of David, Inc.) in December 2016 alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Miller for allegedly refusing to participate in fights and meetings with top network executives.
SPC also brought claims for tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with advantageous business relationship against Stephen Nelson, Miller's co-manager; Alvina Alston and More Media, Miller's publicist; and Leon Margules and Warriors Boxing Promotions, Miller's lawyer and a rival promoter. The tortious interference claims alleged Alston put out press releases with false accusations against SPC, that Nelson advised Miller to breach the contract by non-performance and that Margules was not just acting as a lawyer but was trying to sign Miller to his promotional company Warriors Boxing.
The parties entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement in June 2017. The Settlement Agreement was amended in February 2019.
Counsel for SPC (former NYSAC Commissioner David Berlin) alleges in the letter to the court this week that Miller has treated the New Promotional Agreement that was entered into at settlement with "blatant disregard and disrespect - repeatedly disparaging SPC and its principal Dmitriy Salita in interviews and on social media in violation of the Non-Disparagement Clause, meeting and negotiating with promoters other than SPC in violation of the agreement's exclusivity provisions, and flaunting the sport's anti-doping rules by using prohibited drugs in violation of the clear terms of the agreement, there squandering his opportunity to fight for the World Heavyweight Championship . . . "
SPC seeks "millions of dollars" in damages from Miller for the money lost due to the doping violations and also permanent and temporary injunctions to stop Miller from disparaging Salita and SPC and keep Miller from meeting or negotiating with promoters other than SPC.
See original complaint below:
See letter to Court below:
Showing posts with label Salita Promotions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Salita Promotions. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
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...
