Parties in the Austin Trout case have filed opposition briefing before the federal district court in Puerto Rico. Each side addressed the merits of the other’s briefing on whether or not the Court should issue a ruling to allow the case to go to arbitration.
As you may recall, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Trout after the trial court ruled that the case was to go to arbitration. The appellate court determined that the arbitration-selection provision in the WBO’s Appeal Regulations were void because it created a conflict of interest. The appellate court sent the case back to the trial court to determine “whether the arbitration-selection provision at issue is severable from the remainder of the arbitration agreement.”
Trout opposition brief by MMA Payout
WBO Opposition brief by MMA Payout
Here there are two documents from the WBO at issue. The first is the WBO’s Rules and Regulations and the WBO’s Appeal Regulations. One of the documents includes a “savings clause” while the other does not.
The WBO Championship Regulations includes an arbitration clause as well as a “savings clause.” The Appeal Regulations does not include a savings clause.
Trout argues that the appellate court was correct in invalidating the arbitration clause. As such, the clause should be deemed unconscionable. Meaning, that even because the means of arbitration was invalid and as a result, the option of arbitration should be invalid. They cite to a case which explains that allowing unconscionable provisions and then rewarding the drafter.
The WBO argues that a clause in the Championship Regulations is supplemented by the auxiliary arbitration provisions incorporated by reference from the Appeals Regulations. Per the WBO’s argument, through the incorporation by reference, “any invalidated provision is several due to the savings clause in the other document and caselaw cited by the WBO.” This infers that even if the method of arbitrating a dispute was invalid, the intent of arbitration should remain intact and the case should be sent to arbitration.
In addition, the parties argued over the hypothetical of if an arbitration were to happen, should the court appoint an arbitrator or should that be left up to the party.
An amicus (roughly friend of the court) brief was filed by a law professor specializing in arbitration. His law review article was cited by Trout’s lawyers in their briefing in support of the boxer’s argument that his case should proceed to trial. The amicus brief was accepted by the Court and will be taken in to consideration. We will take a look at that in another post.
Payout Perspective:
There is no set timeline on when the Court may make a decision on the briefing but its clear that this will be an important decision in combat sports. If the court sides with the WBO, it could mean that the Ali Act would be deemed subject to arbitration which could lead promoters to include this provision in future contracts. Another issue here is the arbitration-selection provision. If the Court sides with arbitration, promoters could include arbitration-selection provisions which wouldn’t necessarily show a conflict of interest as the WBO’s but one which would be much more promoter-leaning. It would be less expensive and time-consuming for the promoter. While expense is an issue to the boxer, taking a case to trial may provide him or her a much more sympathetic judge or jury. MPO will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply