Although the main case of Cung Le-Zuffa lawsuit is still in limbo, Zuffa filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit of former UFC athletes Kajan Johnson and CB Dolloway. Johnson and Dolloway’s lawsuit mirror Le and former fighters in their response. You may recall that Judge Richard Boulware denied the Motion to Dismiss as the lawsuit for Le, et al continues.
In September Zuffa filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss seeks to cut off Johnson and Dolloway’s lawsuit citing it as duplicative of the Le lawsuit which currently is pending.
Motion to Dismiss by MMA Payout
Arguing that the lawsuit mirrors the Le lawsuit in 2014 except for the designation of market and the addition of Endeavor as a party, Zuffa first makes the argument that Endeavor should be dismissed from the lawsuit as it claims that the company that purchased the UFC is only a party due to its acquisition.
It then makes the assertion that Plaintiffs believe that the MMA landscape has not changed since the Le lawsuit in 2014. Specifically, Zuffa argues that there are other companies in the MMA industry that have made strides since the original lawsuit that are now competitors of the UFC. Referring to the claims as “stale allegations,” Zuffa argues that the claims of monopolization or monopsonization fail due to the fact that rivals of the UFC could, in fact, offer fighters comparable earning potential. It cites Bellator and ONE Championship as organizations that have the liquidity to pay fighters. Moreover, it argues that Plaintiffs plead no facts describing the current competitive landscape.
To show the Court that the lawsuit filed by plaintiffs is a ‘cut and paste’ of the Le lawsuit filed 7 years prior, it attaches as an exhibit a side by side comparison of the lawsuits. The lawsuit is below:
In response, last Friday, Johnson and Dolloway’s attorneys filed an opposition.
As outlined in its opposition, the new lawsuit filed by Johnson and Dolloway was made for two distinct reasons: “(1) to hold accountable Endeavor, the majority owner of Zuffa since 2016, for its active involvement in suppressing Fighter compensation; and (2) to preserve the rights of Fighters injured by Defendants’ conduct after June 30, 2017 (when the Le Class Period closed).”
Response to Motion to Dismiss by MMA Payout
As Plaintiffs argue, Zuffa’s motion in this case, mirrors that of the Le Motion to Dismiss. Thus, Johnson and Dolloway’s attorneys argue that for the same reasons that Zuffa’s motion failed in the original lawsuit, they should fail here.
As with the Le lawsuit, Zuffa argues that the market definition by Johnson was not correct.
Zuffa also argued that allegations in the lawsuit were time-barred due to statute of limitations. However, Plaintiffs argue that there is a “continuing violation of antitrust law” if there a “new, independent overt act in furtherance of the scheme.”
Also, of note in the lawsuit is that Plaintiffs are holding Endeavor liable not from purely an ownership standpoint, but for its own conduct. Plaintiffs argue that Endeavor played a role in the Antitrust violations allegedly committed against the fighters. As an example, it cites to “Endeavor negotiating and executing PPV, media and sponsorship agreements on behalf of the UFC and its Fighters and that the Scheme has inflated the UFC’s PPV prices significantly above competitive levels.” Plaintiffs note in their lawsuit that the Fighter Contracts restrict certain sponsorship agreements for fighters. Endeavor negotiates such sponsor agreements.
In closing its opposition, it states that it is not opposed to consolidating this case with the Le case with the proviso that it may use the same expert information from the Le case. This appears to be something that both parties would like to do although its clear that the parties are likely to differ on stipulations and discovery.
For this Johnson and Dolloway case, the parties will confer on a discovery plan which may include the crossover of information requested to avoid duplicating efforts from the previous lawsuit. One may see that the parties will likely butt heads on discovery information as the sides have already done an extensive search of Zuffa records as well as third parties.
Leave a Reply