The Julio Cesar Chavez-NAC fight in Nevada is not going away as last week the boxer’s attorney filed a Notice of Appeal in Nevada of the dismissal of JCC’s lawsuit. The appeal might be a continuation of an alleged claim which occurred in Wanderlei Silva’s lawsuit against the commission in 2016.
ORDER Julio Cesar Chavez Case by MMA Payout on Scribd
Late last year, Julio Cesar Chavez was scheduled to fight Danny Jacobs in December in Las Vegas. However, in October JCC refused to take a drug test administered by VADA as directed by the commission, he was suspended and was denied a license to fight. JCC’s attorney was able to obtain a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that allowed JCC to fight in Arizona.
Danny Jacobs stopped Chavez in their fight in December 2019 after JCC said he broke his hand.
Despite the fact that Chavez was able to fight, the court battle continued as JCC sought to evade a suspension from the commission after the injunction was lifted. The commission attempted to dismiss Chavez’ complaint and dissolve the restraining order. Chavez opposed the dissolution of the restraining order and requested that a preliminary injunction be issued in the boxer’s favor.
The trial court in Clark County held that Nevada held jurisdiction during the initial proceeding in which it attempted to test Chavez and the subsequent disciplinary actions. The Court relied upon the Nevada Rules regarding the jurisdiction of the Commission as authority. It also cited other sections of the code which conferred authority and inferred that even if an unarmed combatant did not hold a license, they were subject to the jurisdiction. It went on to state, “…the NAC in tenor with the NRS, and the statutory purpose of both, they suggest that the NSAC’s jurisdictional limits are generally broad rather than limited. A plain reading of the Regulatory and Statutory Scheme in Nevada provides that an unarmed combatant need not be licensed, but only “…approved…” by the NSAC, to be subject to the NSAC’s Jurisdiction.”
The core argument from Chavez is that he should not have been suspended due to the fact he was not licensed in Nevada and therefore the state could not hold jurisdiction over him. Chavez was in Los Angeles when VADA attempted to take his test but this does not seem to matter in the lawsuit.
The trial court also determined that Chavez had failed to exhaust all administrative remedies. Specifically, the court notes that the NAC had yet to “render a Final Decision” before the Plaintiff had the right to request a review by the District Court. In the Wanderlei Silva case discussed below, Silva filed a Petition for Judicial Review of the NAC’s decision to ban him for life. Here, Chavez filed for a temporary injunction which was received by the court but never formally had a hearing before the commission.
Chavez’s attorney, Ross Goodman, is the same advocate that represented Wanderlei Silva in his lawsuit against the commission. Recall, Silva was given a harsher ruling than Chavez as he was initially given a lifetime ban and fined $70,000 for attempting to evade a drug test. Silva appealed the ruling and was eventually given a 3-year ban. However, Silva had to sue the Commission to overturn the lifetime ban. In the midst of the litigation, Silva appealed his case to the state supreme court arguing that the rules state that they are limited to unarmed combatants that are licensed within the state. However, the state supreme court did not address the issue because it determined that the case was not fully adjudicated on the lower level and since it is the highest court within the state, could not answer the issue since the rest of the case had not been settled. That issue that was left unsettled was the lifetime discipline of Silva. The commission reduced the lifetime ban and fine and the case was settled prior to the return of the case to the supreme court.
Payout Perspective:
This will be an interesting case to follow for the simple fact that there appears to be a genuine disagreement in the statutory interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Nevada Athletic Commissions for boxers and MMA fighters that have yet to apply for a license. While the trial court refers to the intent of the statute, Chavez’s attorney identifies a valid argument that the jurisdiction issue is not as clear as saying the intent of the statute was for the state to retain dominion over athletes. It would seem to overreach if the intend is to include those athletes that are not yet licensed by the state. Although procedural, the fact that Chavez had not exhausted all of his administrative appeals and/or followed the proper protocol in appealing the decisions may be a hurdle to litigating this case. MMA Payout will keep you posted.
Leave a Reply