• 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

Nevada Court denies Zuffa’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Nathan Quarry…for now

September 26, 2017 by Jason Cruz Leave a Comment

Judge Richard Boulware has denied Zuffa’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to dismiss plaintiff Nathan Quarry from the lawsuit.  However, the Court has indicated that Zuffa may refile at the close of discovery.

In a minute order issued on Tuesday, the Nevada Court determined that the motion for summary judgment to dismiss one of the plaintiffs in the Zuffa antitrust lawsuit was premature.

“The arguments raised in these motions would be more properly considered with the full set of motions that will be filed at the close of discovery,” stated the minute order issued by the Court in denying the motion at this time.  “IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Motions for Partial Summary Judgment are DENIED without prejudice to being refiled at the close of discovery.”

In this context, without prejudice is legal terminology which indicates that a party’s rights are not precluded from refiling.

Oral arguments were heard on September 21st for a little over an hour.  Zuffa claimed that due to antitrust statute of limitations, Quarry’s alleged claims of injury were barred by his promotional agreement.  The former UFC fighter argued that his claims still exist as the UFC still use Quarry through the selling of merchandise on its web site and showing his fights on UFC’s Fight Pass.

Payout Perspective:

It appears that Judge Boulware would like to see all of the facts that may come out in fact discovery prior to hearing the dispositive motion set forth.  It’s also clear that he anticipates Zuffa to file a motion for summary judgment on all of the plaitniffs.  At this point, he believes that the motion was premature.  In my opinion, dismissing a plaintiff on summary judgment prior to the close of discovery is rare considering the information that may surface during the fact-finding process.  It’s not clear if there will be any further opinion released past this minute order.  MMA Payout will keep you updated.

Filed Under: Antitrust Class Action, Featured, Le v. Zuffa, legal

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Primary Sidebar

Featured

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

Plaintiffs seeking $270K from Dominance MMA

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

Plaintiffs have filed a reply in support of its motion for attorney fees. Notably right after motion was filed Dominance provided document responses. However, Plaintiffs claim the document responses are still not complete #Zuffa #TKO #UFC #antitrust #sportslaw

3

Dominance responds to Plaintiffs’ Fee Request #UFC #TKO #ZUFFA #Antitrust #MMA https://mmapayout.com/2026/04/28/dominance-responds-to-plaintiffs-fee-request/

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

TODAY, on the 59th anniversary of my grandfather taking a stand for what he believed in and refusing induction, we made meaningful progress with Senators on the Ali Revival Act.

Fighters, your rights are on the line. Speak up.

Uniform compliance pay?

Home of Fight @Home_of_Fight

😬💰 Arman Tsarukyan says the UFC randomly sent him $42,000 bonus recently:

"I don't know what is it for. Maybe for my social media work. But they never tell. Otherwise my manager would ask for percentage."

🎥 @PBDsPodcast

This rivals the Jon Jones 1 day in rehab

Adam @zandermercury

6 years of cheating fixed by missing 1 day of work

Load More

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