Last month the parties in the TKO-Phil Davis antitrust lawsuit filed papers related to the promotional company’s attempt to dismiss Davis’ antitrust lawsuit. The former UFC fighter filed a response in opposing the motion.
TKO’s motion to dismiss is premised on the assertions that Davis’ lawsuit has no merit. The lawsuit mirrors the Cung Le lawsuit but covers the timeline after the Le lawsuit. In addition, it asks for injunctive relief and not monetary damages. TKO claims that Davis’ claims have been extinguished as part of the settlement under the Le class action settlement. The class of fighters settled with Zuffa for $375 million. TKO also argues that Davis does not have standing to bring the lawsuit and the alleged causal relation between the claims and the damages are attenuated.
Davis request for injunctive relief is focused on the elimination of restrictive clauses in fighter contracts. If successful, the UFC would be prevented from inserting certain clauses which would prevent fighters from being locked into contracts. It would allow for fighters to terminate contracts after one year.
Davis opposed the motion to dismiss stating that in fact he does have standing to bring the lawsuit and that the Le Settlement did not extinguish his claims. Specifically, he argues that the allegations in this lawsuit “arose before final approval of the Le Settlement.”
The argument may be semantics to the laymen, but it legal terms, Davis’ attorneys make the assertion that he still had claims even though there was settlement of his prior claims. Davis’ attorneys cite a case which states that the “waiver of existing claims as inconsistent with a release of future claims.”
This argument is the reason why legalese is included so many clauses which means to foreclose any future or prior claims.
Davis, who fought in the PFL, argues that despite fighting in the PFL he is subject to “suppressed compensation due to Defendants’ unlawful conduct.
As a result, Davis claims the continuing violation doctrine. “Under the continuing violation doctrine, “the cause of action accrues at . . . the date of the last injury.”
TKO argues that Davis lacks standing due to an “umbrella theory.” In its original motion, it claims that the causal claim is too attenuated for Davis to make the argument that the UFC’s alleged misconduct caused the purported restriction of his fight pay. Thus, Davis argues that he has to take lower pay from the PFL due to the fact that the UFC’s restrictive contracts caused the industry standard to be lowered.
TKO’s reply brief filed on October 9th also argues that Davis is not and does not seek to be a UFC fighter and as a result, does not have an injury and standing to bring the lawsuit against them.
Payout Perspective:
There is no hearing date scheduled for TKO’s Motion to Dismiss although the Court could make its determination without oral argument. Davis’ attorneys have a requested oral argument but as of this writing we don’t know if that is going to happen. The arguments primarily stand upon whether Davis can bring the lawsuit and whether he has a recognizable damage. The lawsuit is based on injunctive relief which differs from monetary damages. This lawsuit will be based on legal precedent as the parties make persuasive arguments about cases related to whether this case can be brought after the Le settlement and if Davis’ injuries are legally recognizable. MPO will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply