The Plaintiffs in the UFC Antitrust lawsuit have filed its Reply Brief in support of its motion for class certification.
Plaintiffs Reply ISO of Class Certification by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
Zuffa Oppo to Class Cert by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
The four factors for class action certification are the number of potential members of a class, the commonality of questions of law or fact, the typicality of the claims or defenses of the class and the adequacy of the representative classes. In its, opposition brief, Zuffa took aim at the four factors in concluding that Plaintiffs have not served
Plaintiffs stress “four fundamental errors” in its reply brief.
First, Zuffa errs that there can be no legal challenge to its business practices. Plaintiffs cite illegal conduct that allowed Zuffa an advantage in its industry. The Plaintiffs rebut Zuffa’s assertion that wage level is the only way to evaluate compensation citing that its use is a way to masks Zuffa’s abuse of monopsony power. Again, this is the overarching argument between wage level which measures compensation in dollars versus wage share which measures compensation as a percentage of revenues.
Second, Plaintiffs argue that Zuffa misunderstands the antitrust violation which is a scheme to acquire and maintain monopsony power.
Third, plaintiffs claim that Zuffa failed to respond to the ways in which they show common impact. Plaintiffs claim that common evidence was capable of proving widespread harm across a class, courts usually certify classes in antitrust cases.
Finally, Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the class as it refutes Zuffa’s claim that challenges the typical damages may have left some proposed class members uninjured. In refuting this argument, Plaintiffs argues that there is no law which must show all class members were harmed to satisfy the typicality requirement.
Zuffa also argues that since Plaintiffs are ex-fighters, they will not protect the interests of the current Fighters. However, Plaintiffs cite case law stating that former employees may represent present employees. Plaintiffs also cite the “transitory” nature of a fighters’ career. Since they are independent contractors, it would be easy for Zuffa to insulate itself from a class action lawsuit as the promotion could release a fighter it believed would be part of a lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that former fighters have less of a concern with retribution from the organization versus a current fighter bringing a lawsuit.
Payout Perspective:
As in most Reply Briefs, Plaintiffs support its initial motion while rebutting opposition from Zuffa’s response to the motion. As will be one of the bigger issues in the “battle of the experts” is the calculation of damages through wage share or wage level. Plaintiffs endorse the wage share model to determine whether fighter wages were suppressed through illegal conduct versus Zuffa’s claim that wage level should be used to evaluate whether there were any factors to show such illegal conduct on the part of Zuffa. Of course, each version supported by the party helps their respective viewpoint. The Reply addresses Dr. Singer’s expert report and his theory of Zuffa’s Foreclosure Share – the proportion of fighters subject to its exclusive contracts – affects its Wage Share. Dr. Singer’s theory of liability model suggests that Zuffa’s Exclusive Contracts are part of an unlawful scheme which correlates with underpayment of fighters due to illegal foreclosure (i.e., the measure of damages). MMA Payout will keep you updated.
Leave a Reply