As trial nears, the plaintiffs in the Jaron Ennis lawsuit have filed a motion with the court to include an Indemnification Agreement that Cameron Dunkin drafted on his behalf which would indemnify himself from any liability in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit involves Chris Middendorf as his promotion Victory Boxing Promotions sued boxer Jaron Ennis, his father Derek Ennis, Sr. and his manager Cameron Dunkin and Joseph Dunkin. The lawsuit stems from an alleged breach of contract in which Middendorf claims that Ennis was under a promotional contract with Victory Boxing Promotions but subsequently cut ties with him prior to the end of the contract. He then went with his manager, Cameron Dunkin, who began promoting fighters.
Plaintiffs' First Amend… by MMA Payout
According to the boxer, he claims that in March 2016, Ennis agreed to enter into a promotional rights agreement with Cameron and Joseph Dunkin as Victory Boxing Promotions and not Middendorf. He claims that Middendorf fraudulently added his name to the promotional rights agreement as the document was not signed all at the same time. His argument is that he never agreed to be promoted by Middendorf under Victory Boxing Promotions. He agreed to be promoted by the Dunkin brothers under Victory Boxing Promotions. Yet, Ennis claims that Middendorf was telling people within the industry that he was promoting Ennis. Attached to one of his pleadings is a February 7, 2019 from Boxing Scene which talks about Middendorf claiming he represented Ennis. Notably, the article has a byline from ‘Now Promotions,’ which is Dunkin’s promotion.
Below is the Brief filed by Chris Middendorf arguing for the use of an Indemnification Agreement as evidence at trial.
This week, Middendorf, the plaintiff in this case that is suing Ennis, his father and the Dunkin brothers filed trial briefs requesting the admittance of an Indemnification Agreement in which Dunkin would indemnify Ennis and his father in exchange to dismiss their claims against Dunkin. The Indemnification Agreement was brokered between Ennis and his father and the Dunkins earlier in the lawsuit when Ennis and his father brought claims against the Dunkins. They have since dismissed their claims and Middendorf argues that this was due to the Dunkins paying for their attorneys’ fees and any judgment that may occur. Usually settlement agreements are not introduced as evidence at trial but Middendorf argues in his brief that the motive for introducing the evidence is to show that the Dunkins and Ennis conspired to work against Middendorf. The court has yet to rule on this evidence.
Payout Perspective:
This is an interesting piece of evidence that could persuade a court at trial. If Middendorf could argue that the Dunkins bought the Ennis’ testimony which included dismissing their claims and paying their attorneys’ fees, it would hurt the credibility of the Dunkins and Enniss. The reason is that it would show that Ennis is willing to testify on behalf of Dunkin and his side because he is being assured, he won’t have to pay attorney fees or any judgment. In evidence law, settlement agreements are usually not introduced as evidence in court because of the public policy that a settlement agreement would be prejudicial evidence for a jury or judge to weigh the evidence. For example, if someone knows they settled their claims out of court, it could persuade a jury or judge into inferring reasons for the settlement.
This case looks to be heating up, and MMA Payout will keep you updated.
Leave a Reply