M-1 Global/Affliction settle lawsuit

Sherdog.com reports that Affliction and M-1 Global have settled its two year old lawsuit. The federal lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles, California, was set to go to trial this October.

Fedor Emilianenko and M-1 Global’s attorneys filed a Notice of Settlement in late August informing the Court that the parties involved in the lawsuit had come to an agreement. The papers filed noted the settlement and requested to vacate all pre-trial deadlines and the October trial date.

As you might recall, this lawsuit stemmed from the failed Affliction PPV, “Trilogy.” More background info is here.

Also, J.R. Riddell of Sherdog.com provides a synopsis:

 [Fedor and M-1 Global’s] complaint alleged that after Josh Barnett refused licensure by the California State Athletic Commission because of a reported positive stroids test, Affliction breached its contract by refusing to promote the third and final fight called for under their “Fight Agreement.” They claimed Affliction did not undertake “all reasonable efforts” to find a fighter to replace Barnett…

One of the claims made by M-1 was that Affliction was trying to repair its relationship with the UFC and no longer wanted to promote its third PPV.

The lawsuit saw key figures in MMA deposed including UFC head Dana White, at the time Strikeforce head Scott Coker, Affliction’s Tom Attencio and Fedor.

This past June, the Court denied the parties’ motions for summary judgment (requests to dismiss the case on a party’s behalf). At the time, the Court advised the parties that they mediate the case in order to settle the matter short of trial. However, the parties did not settle. But, as with most heavily litigated cases where the result may be in doubt, the parties carved out a settlement short of the trial date.

While the Notice of Settlement filed with the court gave the parties the opportunity to reopen the case within 30 days of the notice, it is unlikely that would happen. In most instances, the parties leave this window in the event a party fails to hold up its end of the settlement (e.g., pay the negotiated settlement). More important to the litigants and their clients, the court deadlines were vacated meaning that further legal work (and legal fees) are avoided.