UFC files preliminary injunction in New York case

September 30, 2015

The UFC filed its motion for preliminary injunction on Tuesday.  It argues that the UFC is likely to prevail on its claim and should be granted the injunction to hold its event at Madison Square Garden this April.  Notably, it has already spent a non-refundable $25,000 for the anticipated event in April.

No hearing date has been set and we’ll likely see opposition from New York.

Similar to its complaint filed on Monday, it stresses the contention that the statute banning professional MMA in the state is inherently vague.

“Much of the law’s problems stem from its failure to explain with any reasonable degree of clarity what exactly a “combative sport” is,” reads the moving papers submitted by the UFC.  “Rather than define the term expressly, the statue attempts to reverse engineer a definition by exempting from its prohibitions certain sports, including “martial arts.””

Again the UFC stresses its belief that any issues on standing are now answered: “Whatever uncertainty may have existed on the matter in the past, it is now crystal clear that the estate interprets the law to prohibit Plaintiff from doing so.”

The UFC utilizes deposition from the Jones v. Schneiderman lawsuit to provide evidence that even NY officials provided contrary testimony to how they interpreted the statute.

In addition, the UFC notes that it has contracted with the World Kickboxing Organization, an “exempt organization” allowed to hold events in the states.  The motion states, “To eliminate any potential concerns about the imminence of its injury, Plaintiff has contracted to host a live professional MMA event sanctioned by an Exempt Organization.”

It also indicates that it has committed $25,000 as a non-refundable deposit and stands to lose millions of dollars in ticket sales and media revenue.

As we’ve learned from previous injunction requests in MMA, there are hurdles the injunction-seeker must prove that “the probability of his prevailing is better than fifty percent.”

  1. “a likelihood of success on the merits [of the lawsuit],”’
  2. That it will suffer “irreparable harm” with a preliminary injunction, and
  3. “that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.”

We should also note that the UFC also challenges NY Liquor Law as it did in the November 2011 lawsuit as that law mirrors the Combative Sports Law (or “CSL” as it is referred to in the pleadings).

Payout Perspective:

This will be an interesting, and an important injunction for the UFC in its fight to hold an event in New York.  I believe that the first element, “likelihood of success on the merits,” is the biggest hurdle for the UFC.  Obviously, the monetary investment in holding an event reflects the “irreparable harm.”  You can argue the “public interest” element.  Despite the ban, and the inability to get a law passed in Albany to legalize MMA, there is still a lot of support for the sport in the state.  The “likelihood of success” could be a toss-up and based on the court’s interpretation of the CSL ban.

6 Responses to “UFC files preliminary injunction in New York case”

  1. tops E on September 30th, 2015 11:39 PM

    Desperate

  2. TrollsRoyce on October 1st, 2015 4:06 AM

    I could be wrong but the World Kickboxing Organization requires its fighters to use protective gear. The ufc is really in no position to file any lawsuit against anyone.

  3. d on October 2nd, 2015 9:13 AM

    The people who were complaining about the toxic comment section on here, weren’t complaining about me. They were complaining about the people who come on here just to troll and stir up trouble. Go back and read the complaints. Chris pointed this out recently and I’ve read a number of long time followers complain SPECIFICALLY about the boxing trolls that come on this site and just rant like Tops, Sampson, Jack, Fight Business, The Greatest, Sal, etc. Yet the only one of those guys who you’ve seemed to ban was Sal. Ridiculous.

    These complaints from your general base of readers, will continue because you haven’t addressed the issue. I’ve literally been following this site for at least 6 years now and up until 2 years ago, I only posted once in a while. But it was to the point where literally every single article, you had the same 6 or 7 idiots ruining it for everyone by trolling non stop, not attempting for a second, healthy conversation. That’s when I began to insult and harass them.

    This is the last comment I’m going to leave because you just lost a long time viewer of your site, but if you no longer want to lose viewers, you should ban the correct people- the one’s your sites base are complaining about.

  4. Payout Moderator on October 2nd, 2015 11:12 AM

    d:

    Everyone, not just you, has been warned about personally attacking other readers, language, etc. Don’t you worry, we are monitoring everyone’s behavior. There is no preference on our end. MMAPayout Community Guidelines and Policies will be published soon. Until then, we are giving everyone a small grace period. Cheers.

  5. d on October 2nd, 2015 3:30 PM

    I understand what you are stating, however all one would literally have to do is read a few of the comments of the individual directly above my comments and they would realize you haven’t maintained a balance with blocking them. Literally every single comment that guy has made has been an attack on the article attempting to stir up an argument with other people or a direct personal attack to another reader, yet he doesn’t get blocked. He is literally calling himself a troll and using several different aliases. I mean, how can you objectively tell me you aren’t acting with preference? If you maintained a balance, you would be blocking these guys. They are the ones who are initiating the toxicity here.

    To be clear, I wouldn’t have any gripe or issue what so ever if you completely dismantled the comment section. I love the articles, but the issue is it gets ruined by these idiots.

  6. Andrew Bernhard on November 22nd, 2015 7:10 AM

    The New York courts don’t require weighing the potential of harms in granting or not granting (http://fraudlawyersflorida.com/2015/11/22/the-preliminary-injunction-primer-restraining-orders-in-floria-civil-disputes/)? How often do these get granted up there?

Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.