• 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 to jjjjjj_ffffff Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Primary Sidebar

Featured

UFC Freedom 250 kits revealed

Dominance responds to Plaintiffs’ Fee Request

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

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

#UFC 328 attendance, gate and bonuses https://mmapayout.com/2026/05/10/ufc-328-attendance-gate-and-bonuses/

As I recall, Silva almost put a hole in James Irvin's face

Jed I. Goodman © @jedigoodman

UFC once put the 🐐 Anderson Silva in a non-title LHW fight on Spike TV just to compete with Affliction’s PPV.

The old Dana would absolutely do something like this: tell fans to tune in to UFC Vegas 117 for the International Fight Week card announcement, then stage the

#ZuffaBoxing tonight?

Just pay for his insurance

Dovy🔌 @DovySimuMMA

🫡Dana White CONFIRMS he’s signed Jim Miller to another 5 fight deal

via @ufc

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Load More

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