Dana White and Zuffa have filed its Reply Brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss against Joshua Ramos. The brief argues that Ramos does not have a valid contract and that they did not breach a duty to bargain in good faith in a mediation.
The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss takes place on October 7th.
Zuffa and Dana White Reply … by MMA Payout
As you may recall, Ramos sued White for breach of contract among other claims as a result of a failed negotiation over a purported video and information related to the UFC head having sexual relations with his girlfriend. Ramos was arrested, charged and spent time in prison as a result of a federal charge of extortion due to his actions. Ramos claims that there was an agreement between the parties to negotiate a monetary amount for the information in his possession. White declined to offer an amount suitable for Ramos.
For more information on this, you can listen here.
In its filing on Wednesday in Clark County Superior Court, attorneys on behalf of Zuffa and White claim that there was not a valid contract between the parties and that Nevada law does not recognize contracts to negotiate in good faith. The overarching issue here is the fact that Ramos contends that Zuffa reached out to him to participate in a mediation with White and the company to come to a resolution. When Ramos agreed, he was disappointed with the fact that the mediation did not produce a resolution. He argues that a good faith offer was not put forth.
Payout Perspective:
There are other arguments within this lawsuit including whether or not the UFC should be a party to this lawsuit and whether White/UFC was unjustly enriched from the transaction. But the major issue that is central to this lawsuit (IMO) is the negotiation over the information in Ramos’ possession.
Leave a Reply