Preliminary Injunction Ruling Delayed in Couture Case

February 27, 2008

Greg Savage has an excellent account of yesterday’s hearing in Zuffa v. Couture up at Sherdog.com, complete with quotes from the court room. The issue basically boils down to what the phrase from the contract “involved with any promoter” means.

Couture’s attorney:

The conduct is not promoting. The conduct is not conducting a business related to unarmed combat other than Xtreme Couture, which was excluded from the employment agreement.

Zuffa’s attorney:

The words ‘involved with any other promoter’ are broad for a reason. Because we don’t want him involved with any other promoter. We pay him hundreds of thousands of dollars not to be involved with any other promoter. That was the consideration for the contract and the simple fact of the matter is that someone has whispered in his ear that maybe he can make more money doing something somewhere else, doing something he shouldn’t be doing under this contract. And he has decided, for whatever reasons, be they avarice or whatever, that he is going to do them, and in the course of doing so, sully the good name of the individuals that made him a multi-millionaire 10 times over.

The hearing was continued until Thursday afternoon in order to obtain an affidavit from the IFL regarding the effect the injunction would have on their show on Friday. Couture’s attorney suggested that an adverse ruling might force the promotion to cancel the show, a notion which Zuffa’s attorney called “nonsense.”

Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.