Former UFC champion Carla Lomeli (f/k/a Esparza) has filed an objection to the UFC antitrust settlement between the class of former UFC fighters and Zuffa. Lomeli argues that the attorney fees claimed by the plaintiffs was too much and she objected to the settlement with Nathan Quarry.
Judge Richard Boulware confirmed the proposed settlement between the plaintiffs in the Cung Le class and Zuffa for $375 million.
In a one page document with an attachment of her fight record pulled from Sherdog.com, Lomeli claimed that the 1/3 of attorneys fees, the $301.5 million and “up to one fifth of $73.5 million” should be shaved down. “I request that the additional settlement of $40 million that was reached in the very short period of time between denial of preliminary approval on July 31, 2024, and new settlement date September 26, 2024 pay attorney fees in proportionate percentage according to the hours of professional time put in during this time period vs the time it to reach the initial settlement.”
Lomeli argues that the settlement fund should not be used to pay for Quarry’s settlement of his Identity Rights Claim as she argues “it was not relevant to the success of the case.” Quarry was set to receive $250,000 as part of the original settlement agreement for Zuffa for $335 million. Judge Boulware rejected that settlement but this fall approved one for $375 million. Lomeli argues that Quarry’s settlement should not come out of the fund. Quarry’s identity right claims were dismissed from the Le case as his fights occurred outside the class of fighters certified by the court.
While a Fairness Hearing has not been set in Le, Lomeli indicated she would not be there to argue her claims. The Fairness Hearing in a Class Action settlement is used to discussed the proposed settlement and determine if it is “fair, reasonable, adequate and not based on collusion.”
Notably, Lomeli’s filing included her home address which is not advisable. Below, I’ve cut off the top of the page to leave that out.
Payout Perspective:
Without citing evidence, factual or legal, Lomeli makes bold conclusions about the settlement. Essentially, she believes that the lawyers should charge their hourly rate from the time of the first denial of settlement until the court approved the $375 million settlement because they did not work that much to earn the money requested. Of course, there had to be a lot of time in securing the numerous declarations plaintiffs filed with the court which seemed to have persuaded the Judge to grant the restructured settlement. Moreover, Lomeli does not cite evidence as to why Quarry was not part of the settlement anticipated by Zuffa and plaintiffs. The filing is mere conclusory and the fact she is not showing up to argue her case, makes this just a blip for the court to deny.
Leave a Reply