Al Haymon beats Bob Arum in court Lawsuit THROWN OUT

[Eff Pandas]

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/10/1...ed-boxing-news

Wtf, I gotta go to a MMA website today to keep up with yesterdays boxing news. Boxingscene you need to quit f#cking around.

[PACnPBFsuck]

SB Nation the only ones I seen post a article about it

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/10/1...ed-boxing-news

9:00am yesterday and it hasn't appeared on Boxingscene, surprised TBH

[aldo5408]

Wtf, I gotta go to a MMA website today to keep up with yesterdays boxing news. Boxingscene you need to quit f#cking around.

9:00am yesterday and it hasn't appeared on Boxingscene, surprised TBH

It's sad but boxing scene is pro hbo anti haymon. Everytime someone post a negative thread about giggi it gets deleted

[FeFist]

I'm not surprised. I have my suspicions.

[hhs661]

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/10/1...ed-boxing-news

Seems pretty decisive although he threw them a bone by allowing a re-file. It's over unless Haymon does something insane in the future.

GBP has a better case although not that much stronger. And a big part of their case revolved around the same things Top Rank's case did so doesn't look like they're getting any favorable rulings there.

http://assets.law360news.com/0715000...1122195190.pdf


CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Haymon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED in part. The Haymon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counts I, II, III, and IV is GRANTED. The Court will grant Top Rank an opportunity to amend these claims, and, thus, Counts I, II, III, and IV as to the Haymon Defendants are DISMISSED with leave to amend. Top Rank shall file its Second Amended Complaint on or before October 30, 2015. The Court DEFERS ruling on the Haymon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counts V, VI, and VII. The Waddell Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety. Because the Court concludes that granting leave to amend as to the Waddell Defendants would be futile, the First Amended Complaint against the Waddell Defendants is DISMISSED without leave to amend. Although the Court recognizes that this Circuit has a liberal policy favoring amendments and that leave to amend should be freely granted, the Court is not required to grant leave to amend if the Court determines that permitting Top Rank to amend would be an exercise in futility.

See, e.g.,
Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Denial of leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion where the pleadings before the court demonstrate that further amendment would be futile.”). In this case, Top Rank has already had an opportunity to file an amended pleading and has failed to provide the Court with any facts or arguments in its Opposition that indicate leave to amend with respect to the Waddell Defendants would not be futile. Accordingly, the Court denies leave to amend as to the Waddell Defendants.



IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 24 of 24
Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

[Savage Poster]

I bet Haymon's fans are swinging through trees in excitement.

[sicko]

http://assets.law360news.com/0715000...1122195190.pdf


CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Haymon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED in
part
.
The Haymon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counts I, II, III, and IV is
GRANTED
. The
Page 23 of 24
Initials of Deputy Clerk sr
Court will grant Top Rank an opportunity to amend these claims, and, thus, Counts I, II, III, and IV as to the Haymon Defendants are DISMISSED with leave to amend. Top Rank shall file its Second Amended Complaint on or before October 30, 2015. The Court DEFERS ruling on the Haymon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counts V, VI, and VII. The Waddell Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety. Because the Court
concludes that granting leave to amend as to the Waddell Defendants would be futile, the First Amended Complaint against the Waddell Defendants is
DISMISSED without leave to amend. Although the Court recognizes that this Circuit has a liberal policy favoring amendments and that leave to amend should be freely granted, the Court is not required to grant leave to amend if the Court determines that permitting Top Rank to amend would be an exercise in futility.

See, e.g.,
Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Denial of leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion where the pl
eadings before the court demonstrate that further amendment would be futile.”). In this case, Top Rank has already had an opportunity to file an
amended pleading and has failed to provide the Court with any facts or arguments in its Opposition that indicate leave to amend with respect to the Waddell Defendants would not be futile. Accordingly, the Court denies leave
to amend as to the Waddell Defendants.



IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 24 of 24
Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

Exactly what I posted, the struggle is always PROVING IT!

[HanzGruber]

I bet Haymon's fans are swinging through trees in excitement.

Vagabond gonna vagabond

[hhs661]

Exactly what I posted, the struggle is always PROVING IT!

They gave it a go. Oh well.. On to bigger and better things after 10-30-15

[MrRolltide91]

why hasn't the scene reported this?