• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

MMA Payout

The Business of Combat Sports

  • Home
  • MMA
    • UFC
    • Bellator
    • One
    • PFL
  • Boxing
  • Legal
  • Ratings
  • Payouts
  • Attendance
  • Gate

Plaintiffs claim “revolt” caused Dominance to disobey court order

February 11, 2026 by Jason Cruz Leave a Comment

The Plaintiffs in the Kajan Johnson lawsuit filed an Order to Show Cause compelling Dominance MMA to provide reason why it has yet to comply with an August 2025 order in which it had to turn over information which includes texts from the phones of employees including Ali Abdelaziz. 

Dominance MMA was served a third-party subpoena but did not comply. A court-order was issued and according to the court filing the attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants attempted to coordinate the discovery including the scope of the information to be produced, a vendor to produce them and other administrative issues surround the discovery. However, according to the filing, there was a “revolt”” at Dominance and Abdelaziz refused “to provide responsive documents and communications, citing confidentiality concerns, unspecified social media posts “disparaging” Dominance, and general mistrust of patients.”

Payout Perspective:

It’s called a “Show Cause” hearing because the Plaintiffs are asking Dominance to show why they have disobeyed the court order allowing discovery. Reading between the lines of the brief it sounds like that the attorneys for Dominance believed that an agreement was in place and then attempted to stall based on the length in time between correspondence between the parties. It sounds like that Abdelaziz realized the information that they would have to submit to the Plaintiffs and it could be damaging for a variety of reasons. Perhaps, legal, perhaps reputation. But whatever it might be backing out of an agreement, let alone court order, at the last second is a bad look. At some point he will have to produce documents. We will see how this plays out and if a deal can be done before the hearing.

Filed Under: legal, UFC

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Featured

Court denies request to halt UFC White House event

Plaintiffs file Reply Brief in White House lawsuit

Government response to citizen lawsuit attempting to stop UFC White House

Lawsuit seeks to shutdown UFC White House event

Johnson plaintiffs take a renewed aim at Dominance in antitrust lawsuit

Scott Coker returns to MMA

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

From the Judge's Order today denying the injunction. The Court states that plaintiffs did not have a specific harm to satisfy the threshold for an injunction #UFCWhiteHouse #TKO #UFC

Judge Amit Mehta, the judge that denied the #UFC White House injunction, was a Obama appointee. Just another reason to Blame Obama

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Only 16% of Americans approve of Trump holding UFC event at White House.

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

ALERT: Judge Amit Metha rules UFC event can proceed at White House, ruling harm to plaintiffs would only be "temporary" & that the challenge came too late

"Considerable time, labor & funding.. has gone into organizing the UFC fight and lead-up events"

Full contact 5 days a week 😂

MMA Mania @mmamania

Mania Mailbag: Do we trane UFC? https://www.mmamania.com/mma-mailbag-questions-answers-ufc/449583/mania-mailbag-do-we-trane-ufc?utm_campaign=dhtwitter&utm_content=%3Cmedia_url%3E&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Load More

Copyright © 2026 · MMA Payout: The Business of Combat Sports