Quarry responds to Zuffa’s Motion for Summary Judgment of his claims

Attorneys for Nate Quarry have filed its Opposition Brief to Zuffa’s Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss Quarry’s claims in the antitrust lawsuit filed in Nevada.  Quarry’s lawyers argue that while his last contract was in 2010, the harm to Quarry arose out of Zuffa’s scheme as a whole.

Quarry’s attorneys note that the former UFc fighter was “injured” during the limitations period – the four-year period between December 16, 2010 to December 16, 2014.  Among the claims is that he has not been paid from Zuffa during the period and continues to receive no payment from Zuffa’s “ongoing use of his image and likeness.”  Quarry notes that the use occurs through the use of his fights (including a bout while he was not with the UFC) on UFC Fight Pass and a highlight with Quarry’s likeness is in the video montage of the UFC PPVs.

While the UFC argues that the “express terms” of Quarry’s contract with the UFC show that his claims are time-barred by a statute of limitations.  However, Quarry argues that he can show evidence of affirmative “overt acts” taken by Zuffa with the use of his likeness/image still on Fight Pass.  Quarry’s attorneys state that fighters are not compensated for the use of their likeness/image on UFC Fight Pass and this is furtherance of the antitrust claims filed by Plaintiffs.

In addition, they cite posters autographed by Quarry from his title fight at UFC 56 on sale on the UFC web site store for $999.999 and $1,149.99.  He has not received compensation for these posters

Also of note, Quarry notes a document produced by Zuffa in discovery which allegedly accounts for uses of his image or likeness within the limitations period.

In opposing Zuffa’s argument that Quarry cannot show a continued violation of antitrust laws because of his own “receipt of benefits,” Quarry lawyers cite the Ed O’Bannon and Bill Russell cases brought against the NCAA for use of their images and likenesses.  Quarry’s lawyers note that the court rejected arguments that scholarship agreements by O’Bannon and Russell occurred much more than four years before their lawsuits were filed.  Quarry’s tie this ruling as similar to Quarry’s contract with the UFC and the continued use of his image and likeness on Fight Pass.  Notably, Boies Schiller, Zuffa’s attorneys here, was one of the firms representing the plaintiffs against the NCAA.

Quarry’s Opposition to Summary Judgment Motion by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Payout Perspective:

The basic argument here is that Zuffa claims that Quarry’s lawsuit is barred by a 4 year statute of limitations since his contract with the UFC was in 2010.  However, Quarry argues that Zuffa is still using his likeness/image through UFC Fight Pass and selling his autograph on the UFC web site.  It is ironic that Zuffa’s attorneys have been on both side of this argument and will be interested to see how they respond.