Zuffa files Reply Brief in Cirkunov Antitrust Lawsuit

Zuffa recently filed its Reply Brief in its appeal of the district court’s ruling allowing discovery in the Mikhail Cirkunov lawsuit. 

Despite the ongoing lawsuit, Zuffa filed the appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals. Zuffa attempted to move this lawsuit into arbitration based on the clauses in the fighters’ agreements. Attorneys for the fighters argued that since the Le case provided findings that the UFC had a monopoly/monopsony the clauses relied upon were unconscionable.

The district court ordered the case to have limited discovery to determine whether the fighters were forced to sign the contracts with arbitration agreements. If so, the clauses would be void due to the fact that they were not bargained for by the parties. Instead, Zuffa appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The issue has yet to be decided by the Ninth CIrcuit. The Court has asked parties about the potential for oral arguments on the case this fall. It has yet to decide a date.

The Cirkunov Plaintiff argued the following in its Brief:

In its Reply Brief, Zuffa argues that attorneys for Cirkunov conceeded that the clauses were enforceable.

Zuffa cites the Federal Arbitration Act as its legal support to the right it had to “stay” the district court case pending arbitration. However, the district court did not do so which is its rationale for the appeal.

It also argues that the district court wrongly preconditions the merits of the facts to determine the arbitrability of the contract.

Payout Perspective:

The Ninth Circuit will likely have oral arguments on this case this fall which means that the ruling will not come out until 2027. It will be interesting how this affects the case at the district court level and the other antitrust cases (Johnson and Davis). The specific issue will be based on whether the 9th Circuit rules on the overarching case of jurisdiction. If it entertains jurisdiction the case will be decided upon how it reads the Federal Arbitration Act in relation to the issues of unconscionability.