• 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

Zuffa v. Bellator/Pavia Litigation: Bellator Asserts Claim For Defamation

March 18, 2011 by Justin Klein 6 Comments

Zuffa v. Bellator/Pavia Litigation: Bellator Asserts Claim Against Julian Gregorio for Defamation & Some Theory of Misappropriation Based on Alleged Leak to Zuffa

Following up on my coverage of Zuffa’s lawsuit against Bellator and Pavia — — a post with earlier links is here and here is my most recent post on the Court’s denial of Bellator’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction — on March 17, 2011, Bellator filed its answer to Zuffa’s complaint and asserted a third-party claim, i.e. a claim against a non-party, against Julian Gregorio who is allegedly a citizen of the State of California and allegedly may have been a former employee of MMA Associates, of which Ken Pavia is the alleged “Principal.”

At the outset, in its third-party complaint Bellator describes why its CEO, Bjorn Rebney, “requested from Pavia certain documents used by the UFC in connection with fighters.”

Specifically, Bellator alleges as follows:

In the summer of 2010 Bjorn Rebney determined to review the sufficiency of documents used by Bellator.  As part of that process he requested from Pavia certain documents used by the UFC in connection with fighters. At no time did Rebney request any document anticipated to contain trade secrets or information proprietary to Zuffa, LLC. Mr. Pavia requested confidentiality due to, as he put it, fear of retaliation by Zuffa for cooperating with Bellator. In any case, communications between the parties would be presumptively confidential.  Zuffa has a reputation for ruthlessly attempting to block competitors in the MMA field.

(emphasis added).

Bellator next alleges that Pavia did send the documents but that it never used the documents:

Pavia did, on a confidential basis, send certain documents to Bellator. However, those documents were not confidential and contained no proprietary information belonging to Zuffa.  The documents in question were sent on a confidential basis but were not confidential documents.  The format of the documents in question was changed from a PDF format to a Word format, but no Bellator representative substantively reviewed those documents as of the time of filing of the Complaint to which this Third Party Complaint is directed.  The documents supplied by MMA Associates were never utilized by Bellator in any way and in fact were not substantively reviewed by Bellator’s staff or by Mr. Rebney.

With respect to Mr. Gregorio, Bellator alleges (upon information and belief) that he was an employee of MMA Associates and that he allegedly “took privileged communications between the CEO of Bellator and the President of MMA Associates and, with the knowledge that he was not entitled to do so, transmitted same to representatives of Zuffa, LLC.”

Further, Bellator alleges upon information and belief that:

Gregorio informed representatives of Zuffa that Pavia and Bellator were conspiring to misappropriate Zuffa’s confidential information when this was untrue. This information was given either with knowing falsity or with reckless disregard of the truth.  Gregorio informed representatives of Zuffa that Bellator misappropriated trade secrets of Zuffa. This information was false and was either known to be false by Gregorio or was given in reckless disregard of the truth.

Bellator asserts claims against Gregorio for defamation and some theory of alleged violation of Bellator’s right to privacy and confidentiality.

Quite frankly, I don’t understand the second claim — perhaps it is something specific to California or Nevada (or maybe Bellator is asserting a claim for misappropriation), but it is not really spelled out.

With respect to confidentiality, the apparent (to me at least) alleged basis for some kind of confidentiality or privilege is that “Bjorn Rebney, the CEO of Bellator, is an attorney-at-law[,] Ken Pavia, the principal of MMA Associates, is a law school graduate and, at the time of the matter complained of, was believed in good faith by Rebney to be an attorney-at-law[,] and MMA Agents has on its staff at least one attorney-at-law.”There is, of course, an attorney client privilege, but I don’t see how it attaches under these alleged facts.  Certainly no explanation is provided.

Even so, I don’t understand why any communication between Rebney and Pavia would be privileged just because both went to law school.

While I know nothing about the third-party defendant, if he is in fact a resident of California (as alleged) my prediction is that we may see another jurisdictional motion.

Fight Lawyer

***

Justin Klein is a partner of the law firm Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP in New York City where he concentrates his practice in commercial litigation and represents clients in the fight industry. He regularly addresses current legal issues that pertain to combat sports, including efforts to legalize MMA in New York, at his Fight Lawyer website. He is a licensed boxing manager with the New York State Athletic Commission as well as the founder and Chairman of the Board of the New York Mixed Martial Arts Initiative, a non-profit organization that gives inner city youth the opportunity to experience the emotional and physical benefits of martial arts training. Justin lives in New York City where he trains in jiu jitsu and boxing.

DISCLAIMER

The information in this post and on my site consists of my opinion only, i.e., it is not the opinion of my employer or anybody else. In addition, and because this is my opinion, it is not intended to be (and is not) legal advice or an advertisement for legal services. This post provides general information only. Although I encourage interested parties to contact me on the subjects discussed in the articles, the reader should not consider information on this site to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship. I disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this post. Any e-mail sent to me will not create an attorney-client relationship, and you should not use this site or my site to send me e-mail containing confidential or sensitive information.

Filed Under: Bellator, contracts, Featured, legal, UFC, Zuffa

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Steve says

    March 19, 2011 at 9:29 am

    LOL

    So Rebney asked for the documents, Pavia sent them with the understanding that it would remain on the down low, yet Rebney expects us to believe that NO ONE at Bellator every reviewed the documents once they arrived?

    Yeah,

    Right

    If the documents were so inconsequential that no one even bothered looking at them, how come the head of the damn company was willing to go all James Bond in order to procure them? Is Rebney in the habit of asking for things he does not want?

    Reply
  2. Bill says

    March 20, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    Bjorn is a snake. Their financial backer is being investigate by the FBI for fraud, Bellator is losing money, they had to do an additional 2nd round of capital raise which was unplanned, they are paying for their mtv2 time slot.

    They are scumbags in the worst way.

    Reply
  3. Nick says

    March 21, 2011 at 9:36 am

    I am no lawyer, so you may have to clarify this for me. Does attorney-client privilege apply to the violation as it takes place? As I understand it, attorney-client privilege applies to information applying to a case, not the crime if you are codefendants.

    Reply
  4. Justin Klein says

    March 21, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    Nick, applying to a particular case, i.e. litigation, is generally classified as work product and subject to a separate privilege — the work product privilege. Attorney client privilege can be implicated even if there is no case so to speak, such as a client asking an attorney for legal advice, e.g. in connection with a potential transaction. Here, the whole idea that Rebney and Pavia were in an attorney-client relationship such that any privilege would apply is baffling to me.

    Reply
  5. Nick says

    March 22, 2011 at 10:40 am

    Thanks for clarifying. Sounds like a STUPID defense, but at least I better understand attorney-client privilege.

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Bellator Posts Season Low in Ratings - Page 6 - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums says:
    April 19, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    […] stealing their business plan? Well in March of this year Bellator began a counter suit to Zuffa. Zuffa v. Bellator/Pavia Litigation: Bellator Asserts Claim For Defamation : MMAPayout.com: The Busin… Its going to be a mess and a long time till its settled. __________________ WAR EVAN TANNER […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Bellator Posts Season Low in Ratings - Page 6 - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums Cancel reply

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

Primary Sidebar

Featured

Senate makes mockery of Ali Act hearing

Wrestlemania 42 attendance dips from 2025

How will WWE’s big weekend turn out?

UFC 327 attendance, gate and bonuses

Plaintiffs seeking $270K from Dominance MMA

UFC Seattle attendance, gate and bonuses

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

Senate makes mockery of Ali Act hearing #boxing #TKO #UFC #Zuffa #ZuffaBoxing https://mmapayout.com/2026/04/22/senate-makes-mockery-of-ali-act-hearing/

People who do martial arts will laugh and tell me it’s fake. But then I ask them why they do martial arts? 😉

Fightful Wrestling @Fightful

Fox Sports Host Rob Parker Doesn't Understand How Grown Men Are Into Wrestling https://www.fightful.com/wrestling/fox-sports-host-rob-parker-doesnt-understand-how-grown-men-are-into-wrestling

I saw Tamaso at SeaTac airport last Thursday

Roman Reigns SZN 💥 @reigns_era

Good god.

#AEWDynamite

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Per WWE,

#WrestleMania 42 became one of the highest-grossing events in company history, with record or near-record performances across gate, sponsorship, merchandise, WWE World, On Location VIP experiences and digital.

WrestleMania Saturday was the most-viewed telecast of the

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

I should point out that according to those at TKO that the ESPN/MVPW boxing deal is a revenue sharing agreement similar to the original AEW/Turner deal in 2019 and not a full paying media rights deal which Top Rank had and wasn't renewed.

Load More

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