Pacquiao's camp asks Texas court to dismiss boxing promoter's lawsuit

ROWENA JOY A. SANCHEZ MB.com December 1, 2010 MANILA, Philippines - Boxer Manny Pacquiao's camp has slapped a counterclaim suit against the breach of contract case filed by a boxing promoter. Atty. Lee Veness, Pacquiao’s defense lawyer, told ABS-CBN’s “Balitang America” on Nov. 30 that they have filed a motion before a Texas court to dismiss the $1.8 million breach of contract case filed by Mexican-American boxing promoter Edmundo Lozano of Imperial Ed Promotions. Lozano alleged that Pacquiao did not honor their contract when he failed to appear in various events in McAllen, Texas last September. The promoter also claimed that he has given the boxer-congressman an advance payment of $100,000, which was then transmitted to Jinkee Pacquiao, Pacman’s wife. Pacquiao’s camp, however, claimed otherwise, saying that it was the other party who breached the $200,000-contract, which both camps signed last July. “They were supposed to transmit the first $100,000 payment at the first part of August which they did… “They breached the contract on September 3rd, 2010, when they did not make the $100,000 payment required by the contract,” Veness said. He added that Lozano’s camp allegedly tried to make it appear that Pacquiao refused to make the agreed appearances when he was queried about it during a press conference. The pound-per-pound king, the lawyer said, answered “I don’t know.” “Texas laws state that ‘I don’t know’ does not mean you’re refusing to honor a contract,” argued Veness. Veness related that the Texas court has already lifted the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that it previously enforced on $1.5 million of Pacquiao’s winnings (from his bout with Antonio Margarito) in connection to the contract case. “Well it’s important to understand that the restraining order was issued without us being able to respond. We filed a motion to dismiss that is based primarily upon the promoter’s emails, which the judge has not seen. Once the judge saw the emails, he just thought that the TRO should not continue so it’s no longer enforced,” explained Veness. The contents of the said emails, however, were not specified. And as the case has reportedly been transferred to the McAllen district, Veness is optimistic that the court will be in their favor. “We think when the court rules on that motion to dismiss, the court will dismiss the whole case for the same reasons that it refused to continue with the TRO,” said he.