Sparacino, PLLC has filed an opposition brief to Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Compel the firm to prevent them from contacting potential class members in the lawsuit.
The law firm indicated that it had partnered with another firm to handle antitrust claims arising out of the Zuffa case. But, due to plaintiffs’ harassment, it decided that the potential harm. In its briefing it noted 11 potential class members have executed engagement agreements for consultation on their rights as this case proceeds.
The opposition brief argues that it did nothing wrong when it sent its first mailer to prospective class members. It contends that it offered “to assist potential clients in determining whether to bring their own claims” against Zuffa. They also argue that it prevents class members from being forced into a class against their will.
They argue that they did not mislead recipients into thinking that immediate action was needed.
Even though they sent a second mailer for clarification, Sparacino, PLLC argues that “no remedial communications” were warranted. Moreover, they claim plaintiffs requested relief in the matter was “unduly restrictive under the First Amendment.”
Plaintiffs in the UFC Antitrust lawsuit filed the motion which requested a slew of information from Sparacino, PLLC including their mailing list.
They claim that Sparacino made several false and/or misleading claims in its initial advertisement. Plaintiffs seek judicial intervention in this matter to prevent Sparacino from intervening in this lawsuit and allegedly misleading potential class members.
Zuffa filed a brief which opposes some of the issues in which plaintiffs sought relief. Otherwise, as they note, they do not take a position.
Payout Perspective:
This appears to be plaintiffs protecting their territory in this case. Notably on the same day that the opposition was filed, the plaintiffs launched a web site providing information on the status of the case including a place to contact the lawyers.
It appeared at the status conference that Judge Boulware was unaware of the status of the issue and thought it may have been settled. With that being said, one might infer that he doesn’t want to intervene in this particular squabble. The issue brings up the legal ethics of attorney advertising. Moreover, the substance of the advertising materials cannot mislead or mischaracterize anything in advertising. Targeted marketing is legal for lawyers but it cannot mislead a potential client with this information. It is key in this matter.
The other issue is whether this particular dispute stands in the way of the case continuing. Plaintiffs requested oral argument of this motion which would seem to take court time away from other things including determining class certification.
Leave a Reply