Diaz sues Nevada State Athletic Commission
April 26, 2012
MMA Fighting reports that Nick Diaz has filed a lawsuit against the Nevada State Athletic Commission. In addition, Diaz’s attorney filed a preliminary injunction which would stay Diaz’s suspension related to his failed drug test from UFC 143.
Via MMA Fighting:
The suit is asking the court to immediately stay the summary suspension handed out to Diaz by the NSAC as well as to enjoin the NSAC from going ahead in any further disciplinary proceedings. Diaz’s complaint also asks the court to declare his due process rights have been violated by the NSAC’s failure to promptly convene a hearing to determine the merits of the disciplinary complaint against him.
Diaz vs. NSAC
Diaz’s attorney stated that according to statute, Diaz’s disciplinary hearing must have been heard within 45 days of the temporary suspension or it would consider the complaint dismissed. However, Diaz failed to appear at a temporary suspension hearing according to the NSAC.
This will be interesting to see how the court rules on April 14th – the date of the preliminary injunction hearing. Diaz is not challenging the merits of the NSAC’s complaint, but the process. This could have major implications for the NSAC and athletic commissions on a broader scale as it relates to how it governs.
Diaz indicates that he is ready to fight immediately if the suspension is lifted. This could be helpful for the UFC for its late summer/fall schedule as a rematch with Carlos Condit would fill a PPV main event in prelude to a GSP showdown in Montreal.
Diaz’s primary complaint is that the NSAC has not acted within the statutory regulations provided by the state of Nevada which relates to his other complaint of lack of due process. Essentially, Diaz states that the temporary suspension required the NSAC to have a full hearing on the merits of his drug test and subsequent suspension. That has not happened. The NSAC had served Diaz with an Amended Complaint which adds the fact that Diaz lied on his pre-fight questionnaire. The NSAC may argue that the amendment to its original Complaint equated to additional time required prior to a full hearing on the merits.
Another interesting observation is the explanation from Diaz’s camp that it did not challenge the initial “Summary Suspension” due to the reliance that it would receive a full hearing “in the near future.” Diaz’s legal counsel does a good job in laying out dates of its continued request to the NSAC as to when Diaz may receive a hearing.
It’s an interesting legal strategy and its plausible that the injunction may be granted.