Earlier this summer Top Rank Boxing and Todd DuBoef filed papers to dismiss the lawsuit of William Keane. Top Rank and DuBoef claims that Keane’s lawsuit has no merit. Although a hearing date was scheduled, the Court decided that no oral argument was needed. As of this date, the Court has not decided the merits of the motion.
Top Rank and DuBoef argued that the lawsuit was a pretext to badmouth Top Rank and DuBoef in a lawsuit under the guise of litigation privilege. The basis of the lawsuit is that Top Rank had hired Keane to help with fights and was to receive a percentage of the fight payouts from the fights. He claims that when Todd DuBoef took over he lowered the percentage of the fight payouts with the prospect of higher payouts later but eventually they dropped him from the payroll.
The Motion to Dismiss is predicated on the fact that Keane’s lawsuit does not contain sufficient facts to legally go forward. As one would expect, Keane responds by stating that he does have “receipts” for his claims. Alternatively, there is a rule in which he can amend his complaint to include more factual information. Therefore, it leaves an out for plaintiffs to amend their complaint if necessary.
DuBoef’s lawyers argue that he cannot be held personally liable while the allegations were made based upon his position at Top Rank. Thus, even if there are allegations against DuBoef, he was doing it in his capacity as the president of Top Rank.
Both Top Rank and DuBoef argue that Keane’s claim that he was promised to receive 10% of the fighter purses as compensation for each fight he helped with and then it was reduced to 5% based on the alleged promise that he would be Top Rank’s top recruiter and eventually partners with duBoef. Also, if Top Rank did not timely pay him in a timely matter, his commission would be 10%. Top Rank and duBoef claim that Keane’s argument is a non sequitor. Top Rank and duBoef cite a case which they argue is analogous in which the alleged statement “expresse[d] a desire or prediction about future events, not a representation as to a verifiable fact.”
The claim that his fee would revert back to 10% commission if Top Rank didn’t pay is barred under the economic-loss rule which prevents economic damages in tort claims.
In his claim for Breach of Implied Covenant, Top Rank and DuBoef claim the alleged statement “expresse[d] a desire or prediction about future events, not a representation as to a verifiable
fact.” The claim alleges that a party entering a contract did not enter with the “implied covenant” that they would act in good faith under the terms. Thus, Keane claims that Top Rank and DuBoef entered into the purported agreement with the intent of not fulfilling it (i.e., TR and DuBoef would not pay Keane his fee).
Keane’s attorneys argue that TR and DuBoef’s motion to dismiss was procedurally improper as Keane argues that there were a series of agreements while TR and DuBoef claim just one agreement. While this may be semantics, it would be an argument Keane’s attorneys exploit in their opposition brief.
Payout Perspective:
One would suspect that this motion would dismiss the lawsuit outright based on the dispute in underlying facts with the agreement and the legal opportunity to amend the lawsuit. However, one argument set forth by Top Rank and DuBoef is that Keane’s claim are barred by statute of limitations. Keane states that his initial deal to work with Top Rank to recruit fighters occurred with Bob Arum in 2018. When DuBoef took over, their deal with the new percentages occurred in 2019. Notably, California law states that any lawsuit via oral agreement has a 2-year statute while written agreement have 4 years. Nevada has four years for oral agreements and six years for written agreements. Keane states the agreement with Arum was in 2018 while DuBoef’s was in 2019. MPO will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply