The Deontay Wilder-Alexander Povetkin legal drama continues despite a Motion for Summary Judgment motion that seemingly answered all the questions left in the lawsuit. All, except for when World of Boxing (“WOB”), Povetkin’s promoters might recoup the money that has remained in escrow since the start of this dispute.
We’ve covered the exhaustive background of this case since the lawsuit was filed. For background from beginning, check this post and for the most recent filing you can look here.
On April 25th, the court entered an Order which relied on a U.S. Supreme Court case, Hall v. Hall, which determined whether consolidated cases under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are “immediately appealable upon an order disposing of that case.” In this case, the World of Boxing has a claim for defamation which was stayed pending resolution of the rest of the claims. The Court is concerned that the parties have not litigated this portion in the lawsuit assuming no final judgment would be filed.
Order dated 4.25.18 by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
However, the World of Boxing presented a Notice of Presentment of Proposed Final Judgment last week for the Court to sign which would have allowed for WOB to present to the escrow agent and disburse funds back to WOB.
A telephone conference originally set for April 26th has been moved back to May 10th. The parties are expected to address the situation.
Ahead of their teleconference, the parties were offered to address the issue in letter form to the court.
Wilder sent a letter dated April 24, 2018 to the court:
Letter From Deontay Wilder 4.24.18 by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
The biggest argument in the letter was that the Court’s April 19, 2018 Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the parties’ motions for summary judgment, had the effect of dismissing “all claims” except the defamation claim. WOB’s attorneys noted, “Judge Gorenstein concluded that the Bout Agreement granted complete discretion to the WBC to decide any doping question in this case, which had the effect of overruling the jury’s verdict that Povetkin ingested meldonium when it was banned. It also pointed out that the Opinion and Order did not direct entry of a final judgment.
In its letter, it argues that consolidated cases retain their separate identity “to the extent that final decision in one is immediately appealable by the losing party.” Here, WOB cites the U.S. Supreme Court in Hall v. Hall.
On the same day, WOB responded:
Letter From WOB 4.24.18 by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
Wilder argued that the Hall case differed from the instant case. Wilder’s attorneys argued, “[I]t would make no sense and ill-serve judicial economy to grant Defendants’ request for entry of two separate judgment on the same claims in two different cases. To the contrary, such a result would sow serious confusion before this Court and on the appellate level, and there is no precedent to support that outcome.”
Payout Perspective:
From WOB’s perspective, the argument by Wilder is seemingly a way to prolong the litigation to prevent WOB from receiving the millions of dollars kept in escrow. The fundamental legal argument is whether the defamation claim is separate from the other claims made by the parties. The U.S. Supreme Court case has varied interpretations by the parties. Wilder believes that there should be one entry of judgment while WOB believes that there could be two judgments made for the one case. Once again, it appears that the Court was not clear in its ruling as its Order deciding the Motions for Summary Judgment could have outlined the issue or gave guidance as to whether an entry of judgment should occur or pending the litigation of the defamation claim. The question one might ask, is whether dismissing the claim would allow for this case to end barring appeal. We will see May 10th.
Leave a Reply