District Judge Denies Shane Mosley's Summary Judgment Motion in Dispute with Bobby Hitz Promotions

Federal District Judge Michael Fitzgerald of the Central District of California recently denied Shane Mosley and his promotional company GoBox Promotions, Inc.'s ("GBP") Summary Judgment motion in their dispute with Bobby Hitz' promotional entity, Hitz Entertainment Corporation ("HEC"), over cruiserweight prospect Dimar Ortuz' promotional rights.

Recall that HEC filed its complaint in February 2017 alleging that Mosley and GBP had tortiously interfered with HEC's promotional contract ("Promo") with Ortuz.  HEC had allegedly given Ortuz permission to fight on a reality TV show called "Knockout" where Mosley served as a trainer.  As HEC was negotiating with the TV show's representatives, Mosley allegedly promoted an Ortuz fight on the Mosley-Mayorga PPV undercard, as well as two subsequent Ortuz bouts, without HEC's permission.

The Court denied Mosley's motion as to both of HEC's causes of action, tortious interference with contractual relations ("TICR") and tortious interference with prospective business advantage ("TIPBA"), on the basis that HEC had established a dispute of material fact.  The Court issued a caveat on the TIPBA claim that HEC "offered an extremely narrow basis for finding the alleged conduct was independently tortious.  Indeed, so narrow . . . that the claims have become virtually duplicative.  As a technical matter, both claims survive this Motion, but the Court does not intend to give HEC two bites at the apple.  It is highly unlikely that HEC will be permitted to recover on both claims."

Mosley attacked HEC's TICR claim on the basis that HEC did not have a valid contract with Ortuz.  Mosley claimed that HEC materially breached the Promo by not offering Ortuz the requisite number of bouts per year as the offers had to specifically "be in writing and include the name of the proposed opponent and the gross purse amount."  Mosley argued that HEC's material breach of the Promo would invalidate the contract and excuse any of Ortuz' subsequent breaches of fighting for GBP.

The Court found that even if HEC technically did not make the requisite amount of offers in writing, as HEC claimed to make some verbal offers, this was not a material breach.  The Court stated, "at the very least, failure to make an offer in writing (as opposed to verbally) or to state the purse amount in the offer does not seem to be the kind of breach regarding which 'reasonable minds cannot differ' as to materiality."

The Court also did not buy Mosley's argument that HEC had "unclean hands" and tried to profit off of Ortuz' participation in the GBP promoted fights.  Thus, the Court denied Mosley's Motion as to the TICR claim.

The Court also found that HEC's TIPBA claim held up because there was a dispute of material fact as to whether Mosley and GBP also interfered with the contract between Ortuz and the TV producers of "Knockout".

See Opinion 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: