• 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Your email address will not be published.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

The Legal Submission 109 takes a look at TKO Earnings

Plaintiffs in Johnson antitrust lawsuit file statement prior to status conference

Despite two big losses, TKO touts another solid quarter

Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act of 2026 introduced into Senate with minor changes

Plaintiffs file Answering Brief in Cirkunov Antitrust Appeal

Jai Opetaia files a lawsuit against IBF

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

Dude just found a way to beat kids legally

They took him out three batters later

Ryan @RyanF786

THE GREATEST LL MOUND VISIT OF ALL TIME!!

“If you walk the next 5 batters Jesus is still lord,if you strikeout the next 5 batters Jesus is still lord”

🙏🏻 ✝️🙏🏻✝️ #llws #espn #patmcafee

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

"if this mf would have just shook my hand..."

And the Mariners tried to piggy back him

Chris Cochran @bestcoastbias

Castillo with 50% called strike + whiff rate today on his change up. Significant uptick in usage compared to his season totals.

Company line for Mackenzie.

MMA Junkie @MMAJunkie

"Traditional" Mackenzie Dern doesn't share #UFC330 headliner Ian Machado Garry's stance on women running the world.

"I like the man taking the lead."

Load More

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