• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

MMA Payout

The Business of Combat Sports

  • Home
  • MMA
    • UFC
    • Bellator
    • One
    • PFL
  • Boxing
  • Legal
  • Ratings
  • Payouts
  • Attendance
  • Gate

UFC files motion to transfer Antitrust lawsuit to Nevada

February 2, 2015 by Jason Cruz 5 Comments

On Friday, Zuffa  lawyers have filed a motion to transfer the venue of the Antitrust lawsuit in the Northern District of California in San Jose to Nevada where the Zuffa headquarters are located.  The hearing date is set for May 7th although Zuffa requests to advance the date to March 26th.

In its filing, Zuffa anticipated that the discovery process will be “contentious” as it appears that the parties already dispute a briefing schedule to file pleadings.  Zuffa also cites to subpoenas issued to third-parties for this case which Zuffa indicates violates the federal rules. Zuffa was granted an extension to address the three complaints filed by the plaintiffs.

Instead of an Answer to the Complaint, it has filed a Motion to Transfer Venue.

Payout Perspective:

We had predicted this possibility back in December when the Complaint was filed in San Jose.  Zuffa is based in Nevada and has a viable argument under the federal rules of civil procedure that it should be able to defend its lawsuit in its state.  Zuffa argues that plaintiffs signed UFC contracts with the proviso that any legal dispute is filed in Nevada.  Essentially, they agreed to the “forum selection” as part of a clause in their contract.  It also argues that for convenience purposes the lawsuit should be transferred since most witnesses are located in Nevada.

MMA Payout will keep you posted.

Filed Under: Antitrust Class Action, Featured, legal

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. jjjjjj_ffffff says

    February 2, 2015 at 11:43 am

    Does this mean that Zuffa thinks the lawsuit with actually get to discovery ?

    Reply
  2. jjjjjj_ffffff says

    February 2, 2015 at 11:44 am

    No immediate motion to dismiss ?

    Reply
  3. jjjjjj_ffffff says

    February 2, 2015 at 11:44 am

    *will not with

    Reply
  4. Jason Cruz says

    February 2, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    Procedurally I believe motion to transfer has to happen first. Otherwise you’ve surrendurred your argument that SJ is not convenient venue.

    Motion to dismiss still likely but I’m sure Zuffa wants to transfer venue in the event it does not succeed in dismissing case. At least, it will be in Nevada.

    Reply
  5. tops E says

    February 2, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    It means the fighters have a strong case hahahaha

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Featured

Parties in Mayweather-CSI Entertainment lawsuit provide joint letter to court

Plaintiffs highlight outstanding discovery in Johnson antitrust case

UFC 329 Payout Perspective

Does Conor McGregor still have the aura?

Court Memo and Order from CSI Entertainment-Mayweather TRO hearing

TKO responds to allegations of missing discovery in Johnson case

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout
Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Glorified mascot 😂😂😂
Who is bruh
Who gave him a voice
You play 3 years gang
3 different teams

Ain’t coming at you but stop trying me bruh
@EmmanuelAcho

What

Jon Rothstein @NotJ0NRoth

Breaking: ESPN parting ways with long time college basketball personality Jay Bilas.

ICYMI

MMA Payout @MMAPayout

CSI Entertainment attorneys claim that Stephen Espinoza's declaration in support of Floyd #Mayweather is a #quidproquo as the boxer is suing Espinoza and #Showtime #Boxing

WA judge halts Kalshi 'prediction market' via @seattletimes

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

The us number for the McGregor show was 6.1. Milllion. White House show was 7 million. Rousey fight was just over 9. But Netflix has a big advantage in homes.

Load More

Copyright © 2026 · MMA Payout: The Business of Combat Sports