Golden Boy Promotions won a round against Al Haymon in court earlier this week as Judge John Walter denied Haymon’s motion to stay the court action to arbitrate the issues before the court. As a result, the case will proceed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The Court chided Haymon’s attorneys as on September 1st, Arbitrator Daniel Weinstein determined that Golden Boy’s claims related to events post-January 1, 2015 were not within the scope of the arbitration provision signed by the parties in the lawsuit. Thus, while a portion of the claims presented in Golden Boy’s lawsuit may have been subject to an underlying arbitration agreement, some claims, namely the Antitrust claims were not subject to arbitration. The Arbitrator also ruled that Bernard Hopkins, another plaintiff in the lawsuit, might not be subject to the Arbitration agreement and indicated further discovery was needed to determine this issue.
Some background from our July 8th post on this issue:
According to court documents, the Settlement Agreement was signed by the parties (including Richard Schaefer and Oscar De La Hoya) on December 18-19, 2014 and exercised by Haymon on January 8, 2015. According to Haymon, it was a “global” settlement of all issues between the parties. Haymon made “a substantial payment to Golden Boy” which Golden Boy accepted when the parties decided to end its business relationship. The Settlement includes an arbitration provision which would require that the parties be subject to an Arbitrator rather than litigate the matter in court.
The Arbitrator evaluated briefing from both parties on the jurisdiction issue and the settlement agreement and on September 1st decided that it did not have jurisdiction over the federal claims.
Judge Walter was upset with the persistence of the defendants.
In his order, Judge Walter stated, “[a]lthough the Court was confident that Defendants’ counsel would realize that the Mtion was now moot and withdraw it to avoid wasting judicial resources, counsel made the puzzling decision to pursue the Motion and patently frivolous arguments in the Reply [brief].”
Judge Walter denied the motion as moot.
To compare rulings on this issue: The Arbitrator’s order was 17 pages long whereas the Judge’s order was just 2.
It appears that the sides will actually be dealing with an arbitration occurring at the same time as a lawsuit.
Payout Perspective:
Now comes the interesting part of the lawsuit as discovery should now commence (it was previously stayed pending the determination of the motion). Dependent on how much information is kept confidential, we might see the emergence of Al Haymon (at a deposition) and piece together the inner workings of PBC and his business strategy. While it’s not out of the ordinary for one side to push the envelope in trying a motion (knowing the likelihood it will be denied), it’s a not a good look when the judge calls you out on wasting their time. Certainly, not a good start for Haymon’s attorneys in this case.
Getting an arbitrator to decide whether the case is arbitrable. Awesome. Obviously Haymon’s lawyers get paid by the hour. Or maybe by the motion.