More on Zuffa’s motion to transfer Antritrust lawsuit to Nevada

MMA Payout gives you a little more detail in what is going behind Zuffa’s request to move the Antitrust lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs in Northern California to Nevada.  Zuffa’s biggest arguments about the reason for transferring the case is that the Plaintiffs signed contracts/agreements which had forum selection clauses and that for convenience of the litigants, much of the case deals with information and individuals residing in Nevada.

Forum Selection Clauses

Zuffa argues that four of the seven Plaintiffs agreed to “forum selection clauses” in their contracts which would avail themselves to the jurisdiction to the state court or District of Nevada.  The other three Plaintiffs “agreed to forum selection clauses” which indicated that “any disputes arising from or relating to” their agreements would be determined in the state court of Nevada.

Convenience Factors

In addition to the argument that the Plaintiffs agreed to settle legal disputes in Nevada, Zuffa argues that for “convenience of the parties” a transfer to the federal court in Nevada “unequivocally favors” the move of venue.  Zuffa contends that the “contracts and business relationships of Zuffa” are located in Nevada as well as the potential witnesses and documentary evidence is located in Las Vegas.  Zuffa also contends that non-party witnesses are located in Las Vegas which include executives from WSOF, Top Rank, the Wynn Las Vegas and Muay Thai promoter Lion Fight Promotions.  Its not clear from the pleadings whether Zuffa intends to call these witnesses or if these are examples of the argument that there’s an obvious need for the transfer of venue.

Zuffa argues Plaintiffs signed agreements with forum clauses

In its pleadings, Zuffa argues that Fitch, Garza, Le and Vera agreed to “at least one Bout Agreement, Merchandise Agreement, or Promotional and Ancillary Rights Agreement containing a “forum selection clause” which gave their consent “to the exclusive personal jurisdiction and venue of the state and federal courts located in Clark County, Nevada for any action brought by either party to interpret or enforce any provision of this Agreement.”

Plaintiffs Quarry, Hallman and Vasquez have different forum selection clauses which dictated that any dispute arising from their contracts be decided in “the Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, sitting in Las Vegas.”

Limited contacts with San Jose

To buttress its argument that the venue should be transferred to Nevada, Zuffa also compares the amount of events it has held in San Jose (5), where the lawsuit is currently filed to Vegas where it states has staged “more than 30 major MMA events in Las Vegas.”  It also points out that only Cung Le is the only Plaintiff residing in San Jose while all the others do not reside in that forum.  It also states that while Strikeforce was based in San Jose, all of the pertinent document reside at Zuffa headquarters in Vegas.

In its legal arguments, Zuffa asserts that the District of Nevada is an appropriate forum because this lawsuit could have been filed there rather than in San Jose.  It also cites case law which it argues should be the authority to enforce forum selection clauses in contracts. Thus, since the Plaintiffs signed its contracts, they should abide by the forum selection clauses in the contracts.

One of the key legal distinctions made by Zuffa is that it claims that Plaintiffs engage in “artful pleading” when it filed its Complaint as the Plaintiffs argue that they are not individually enforcing their contracts and thus their claims fall outside of each Plaintiffs’ individual contract.  Zuffa contends that this is not the case as the contracts are “inextricably linked” and thus must avail to the forum selection clause.

Possible Zuffa Counterclaim?

It also indicates in one of the last sections of its motion to transfer pleading that it might seek to counterclaim with a breach of contract claim against the Plaintiffs.  Basically, the breach would be the Plaintiffs filing a lawsuit outside of Nevada despite signing a contract indicating that it would avail itself to the jurisdiction of Nevada.

When will this be decided?

The motion will be heard by the US District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose – the place where the Plaintiffs filed its lawsuits.  Zuffa would like to have this motion decided sooner than later and has requested a “Motion to Advance the Hearing Date” from May 7, 2015 to March 26, 2015.  They have also indicated that the motion should be heard “on the papers” rather than oral argument.  Basically, Zuffa would like the Court to decide the motion based on the pleadings filed with the Court which may happen with the discretion of the Court.  This will obviously not sit well with the Plaintiffs who would probably want a full briefing schedule as well as oral argument.  The parties have already butted heads on these issues.

Zuffa Motion to Transfer Venue by JASONCRUZ206

Motion to Advance Hearing by JASONCRUZ206

Payout Perspective:

We are beginning to see the legal maneuvering that is occurring with the pre-discovery procedure between the parties.  Obviously, Zuffa’s motion will be met with opposition from the Plaintiffs as well as opposition to the motion to have the motion heard in advance.  So, two distinct procedural issues before we even get to Zuffa actually answering the Complaints.  This does not even consider the probability of a Zuffa Motion to Dismiss the Complaint which could occur after this initial transfer issue is decided.  Lots of paper in the next couple months before we even get to something substantive in this lawsuit.