Last week, the Court in the CSI Entertainment-Floyd Mayweather, Jr. case denied CSI Entertainment’s request for a temporary restraining order/injunction to prevent Mayweather from entering into another contract prior to fulfilling its alleged contract with the former champion. While it has yet to give a final determination on the substantive claims by Plaintiffs, the request for TRO has been denied.
The Court stated that from the outset, CSI Entertainment’s application would fail because it did not show irreparable harm.
CSI Entertainment indicated that it has a venue for a Mayweather-Mike Tyson exhibition fight set for September 26, 2026. The fight would be at a venue in the Democratic Republic of Congo provided that it is cleared of health issues related to the ebola virus. They claim via a supplemental declaration in its briefing that they had a hold on the American Airlines Arena in Dallas if they could not hold the event in the Congo.
But, the Court was not persuaded by CSI Entertainment’s readiness for an event in September. It seemed much more interested in Mayweather’s claim that he is in a legal battle with his business partners. These were the same partners that he claims signed off on the CSI Entertainment agreements to fight Tyson and Manny Pacquiao. As a result, the Court believed that it was necessary for there to be discovery in the case.
The biggest takeaway here is that the Court does not think there are exigent circumstances which would require that they need to do something to prevent Mayweather from doing something specifically. Essentially, if CSI believed they were wronged or if there was a breach of contract, they could sue for monetary damages based on the liability.
In its conclusion, the Court indicated it did not believe “expedited hearing in the upcoming two months is necessary to adjudicate the merits of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction given my findings regarding irreparable harm.” The Court indicated that briefing would be allowed for the preliminary injunction hearing and whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary.
Leave a Reply