Golden Boy Boxing has filed its Reply Brief in support of its Temporary Restraining Order which will be heard tomorrow morning in a courtroom in Nevada.
Golden Boy filed the emergency TRO to prevent Vergil Ortiz from signing a contract with Matchroom Boxing or another third party for a fight with Jarron Ennis. Ortiz filed an opposition to the TRO earlier this week arguing that the boxer had severed its agreement with Golden Boy because it had breached its contract by not having a distribution agreement to air his fights. Ortiz attached a Declaration from Chief Operating Officer of DAZN Edward McCarthy which confirmed that the company doe not have a current broadcast distribution agreement with Golden Boy.
In its Reply Brief, it stated that McCarthy’s Declaration should not be considered since he has an ownership interest in Matchroom Boxing “the promoter with whom Ortiz has been negotiation a replacement three-bout deal.” Also, on Wednesday Matchroom and DAZN announced a new 5-year exclusive broadcast contract.
In addition to its Reply Brief which includes Evidentiary Objections to Rick Mirigian’s Declaration in support of Ortiz’s brief. Most of the objections relate to Mirigan’s lack of personal knowledge on certain events that he claims are the truth.
In addition, Golden Boy argues that they would be irreparably harmed if the Temporary Restraining Order is not granted. It argues that if Ortiz signs with Matchroom, it would likely mean that it would not re-sign a distribution deal with DAZN.
Payout Perspective:
The hearing is not on the merits of the Ortiz lawsuit but whether Golden Boy should be allowed the Temporary Restraining Order which is based upon 4 primary factors that the moving party must prove. 1) serious question on the merits, 2) a likelihood of irreparable harm, 3) the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of the moving party, and 4) an injunction is in the public interest. Ortiz argues that Golden Boy is unlikely to succeed on the merits of the case (Ortiz lawsuit regarding GB breaching his contract). But, GB argues that due to its Arbitration clause in Ortiz’s contract, it will likely prevail on its Motion to Compel Arbitration. MPO will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply