Comments Thread For: Golden Boy Files Official Lawsuit Against Al Haymon

[j.one]

Oscar always gives himself away when he starts doing blow again, if he could just shut up we'd never know.

[Mitchell Kane]

More from the attorney on Reddit:

Decision on Haymon/Waddell's Motion to Dismiss Top Rank Lawsuit Coming Soon

Yesterday the judge hearing the lawsuits filed by Top Rank and Golden Boy against Haymon and Waddell & Reed cancelled the hearing set for next week on Haymon's and Waddell's motions to dismiss Top Rank's lawsuit (overview below). The judge decided that he doesn't need to hear oral arguments to make his decision.

I think that's a good sign for Top Rank. In this situation, Haymon and Waddell filed their motions to dismiss. That was their first opportunity to make their arguments. Top Rank was allowed to file an opposition brief, in which they made their counter-arguments. Then Haymon and Waddell were allowed to file reply briefs and make their arguments again. Because TR only had one opportunity to make their argument, they would benefit more than Haymon/Waddell from getting another chance to make their arguments in front of the judge during a hearing. If the judge decides this motion in Haymon's favor, the case is over. Judges don't like to be overturned on appeal, so this judge is probably not going to make a case-ending decision without affording TR every opportunity to make their case. Therefore, I believe the judge is about to rule in TR's favor and the case will continue. The judge did not indicate when he would make the decision but I'd expect it this week or next.
In Golden Boy's case against Haymon/Waddell, both sides agreed to wait until the judge makes his decision on the motions to dismiss the Top Rank case. They did this because GBP actually has a better case than Top Rank. If the judge decides Top Rank's suit can go forward, Haymon/Waddell will not file similar motions to dismiss in the GBP case. They don't want to make similar arguments to the same judge that just failed. If the judge decides against Top Rank, I expect Haymon/Waddell to file similar motions to dismiss against GBP and GBP will argue that their case is different from TR. Basically, everything is on hold in both cases until the judge makes this decision.

You may have also heard that the UFC lost its motion to dismiss the anti-trust lawsuit filed against them last week.

The Motions and the Arguments

Haymon/Waddell are claiming that, even if everything TR says is true, their allegations do not and cannot substantiate the minimum elements required for anti-trust violations. This is a really dense and technical area/question of law. I don't know enough about anti-trust law to say who I think is right without reading all of the cases cited and I definitely don't have time for that! So, I will summarize the arguments:

(1) Standing. Haymon argues TR lacks standing to bring this anti-trust suit because (a) TR cannot prove that it has been directly injured by Haymon's conduct and (b) the harm to competition alleged by TR is hypothetical and speculative. TR argues that (a) they've been directly injured by Haymon blocking access to top boxing talent and premier distribution channels and (b) competition has been harmed because Haymon is restricting everyone's freedom of choice (promoters, managers, boxers, networks, venues and fans) with the combination of their exclusive contracts and legal violations.

(2) Relevant Markets. Haymon argues that TR has not and cannot adequately identify the relevant markets, i.e. the markets for the management and promotion of "Championship-Caliber Boxers." TR argues that they have met the legal standard for defining a relevant market at this stage in the proceedings, because going any further would require evidence and expert testimony that is unnecessary at this point. I'd point out here that the judge in the UFC case bought into similar argument made by the plaintiffs against UFC (that there is a difference between elite fighters and non-elite fighters, drawing on the International Boxing Club case).
(3) Market Power. Haymon argues that TR has not and cannot adequately prove that Haymon has enough market power in the management or promotion of boxers because TR doesn't say how many boxers Haymon manages or how many boxers in general are "Championship-Caliber Boxers" and because TR does not and cannot show that there are high barriers to entry in those markets. Essentially, TR makes the same argument as above. They've alleged that Haymon has control of over 200 fighters, including many Championship-Level Boxers and that Haymon's share of that market is over 50%, which is sufficient at this stage of the proceedings without access to discovery. TR also argues that they have alleged sufficient barriers to entry (licensing, experience, reputation).

(4) Group Pleading. Haymon argues that TR has filed their case against a number of defendants but failed to distinguish which defendant did what. TR argues that they've distinguished between defendants where they could, but require discovery to know exactly who did what. TR contends that they've met the necessary requirements for this stage of the proceedings.

(5) Tying. Haymon argues that TR has not stated a viable "tying claim" because, while Haymon's managerial contracts give him veto power over promoters, they do not preclude boxers from working with legitimate promoters. TR argues that the contracts do not have to explicitly preclude boxers from working with legitimate promoters; the court can and should look at the effect of that provision, e.g. that boxers do not sign with promoters after signing with Haymon.

(6) Conspiracy. Haymon argues that TR cannot establish that there was a conspiracy because they are not specific enough about who did what, when and where. Honestly, I can't follow this argument made by Haymon's lawyers. It's ****** and nonsensical. TR essentially says the same.

(7) Attempted Monopolization. Haymon argues TR has not presented adequate evidence establishing that Haymon's "scheme" has a "dangerous probability of success," which is one of the required elements of the law, because they have not adequately alleged that Haymon has the requisite market power in the promoter market. TR argues that the "dangerous probability of success" required to prove an attempted monopolization claim can rely on a much lower level of market power than an actual monopolization claim. Regardless, TR feels they've met the burden of both at this stage of the case.

(8) State Law Anti-Trust Claims. If the court dismisses the federal claims, it should dismiss the state law claims because the court would lack jurisdiction to hear them. This is a correct and easy argument, which hinges entirely on the outcome of the rest of the motions.

(9) California Unfair Practices Act. The UPA prohibits the sale of products below cost in California. Haymon argues that this law doesn't apply because they aren't selling anything; they are paying TV networks to air their content. Additionally, to state a claim TR must allege the sale price, the cost of the product and the cost of doing business, which Haymon claims they do not allege. TR argues that they've pled the most specificity they can regarding sale price, cost of product and cost of doing business without access to Haymon's contracts and financials (which they would get in discovery). TR furter contends that Haymon purchases air time, then gives away the content for free, which qualifies as a sale below cost.

(10) California Unfair Competition Law. Haymon argues that TR has not alleged any injury to itself (that occurred in California) and does not adequately allege any unlawful or unfair acts necessary to invoke the UCL. Haymon claims violation of the Ali Act cannot be used under the UCL because TR does not have independent standing under the Ali Act, only boxers do. TR makes the same arguments regarding injury as above. TR also argues that they don't need standing under the Ali Act to sue for its violation under the UCL, as that is precisely the point of the UCL.

(11) Tortious Interference. Haymon argues TR's claim for torious interference with economic advantage similarly fails because TR hasn't alleged any underlying wrongdoing. TR repeats their Ali Act argument.

(12) Waddell. Waddell argues that they can't be sued for an anti-trust violation because they do not compete or participate in the boxing industry and cannot be held liable for anti-trust violations based solely on their investment in a separate entity. If TR responded directly to this argument, I missed it. Essentially, I believe Waddell is arguing that an anti-trust conspiracy is a very specific thing and normal conspiracy rules don't apply. Again, I don't have time to read the cases but a quick google search did not reveal any support for this proposition. I'm really interested to see where the judge comes out on this issue. It could be true or it could be completely absurd.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comm...o_dismiss_top/