BoxRec

It seems that Canelo’s legal team haven’t refiled the lawsuit within the specified September 29th deadline.

This doesn’t prevent Canelo from refiling the lawsuit at a later date, but it does suggest all three parties are trying to settle the matter out-of-court, which I feel is something most of us anticipated anyway.

Yep

Great move by dazn playing hardball if they settle

In the long run they are screwed but they bought themselves some time

Golden boy seems screwed

Does anybody feel sorry about either side?

alex.ua wrote: ↑29 Sep 2020, 22:31 Does anybody feel sorry about either side?

Nah. Maybe Canelo. I feel like he didn’t want a third GGG fight and never agreed to it. I don’t blame him, and in time I think that decision will be more respected than it is today.

News just in.

CAnelo has refiled the lawsuit against everyone.

WTF? Including me?? I hardly know the guy?

So this is kind of interesting. Canelo is obviously pushing for better terms than what DAZN and GBP initially offered him.

It’s also interesting that Canelo’s legal team have requested a trial by jury. And perhaps they want the judge and jury to acknowledge the myriad of excuses DAZN and/or Golden Boy have cited, rather than simply focussing on the pandemic.

The Gratest wrote: ↑30 Sep 2020, 04:01 WTF? Including me?? I hardly know the guy?

Because you call yourself The Gratest.. He thinks he is of course!

Canelo Alvarez lawsuit against Golden Boy and DAZN re-filed in Los Angeles Superior Court

Monday was the deadline for attorneys for Canelo Alvarez to amend their complaint and re-file in the Central District Court of California. Well, Monday came and went without a re-filing. This is because it was re-filed in state court in California.

The lawsuit filed by the boxer was filed in federal court earlier this month but was dismissed by the Court on its own accord on Friday, September 11th due to a lack of jurisdiction. It had identified the Golden Boy and DAZN defendants as a corporation although they are an LLC.

The lawsuit appears to be the same one that was filed in federal court which alleges breach of contract on the part of Golden Boy Boxing. It states that when DAZN notified Golden Boy of its anticipatory breach due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, it did nothing in an attempt to cure the breach on behalf of Canelo. Although there is no contract between Canelo and DAZN, the fighter claims that the anticipatory breach caused Canelo damages. It alleges that DAZN intentionally interfered with Canelo’s contract with Golden Boy because it knew of Canelo’s contract and was unable to fulfill its contractual obligations to hold events per its agreement with Golden Boy.

In addition to monetary damages, Canelo is looking for a court order to break his promotional contract with Golden Boy.

MPO will have more on this soon.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑30 Sep 2020, 05:03

The Gratest wrote: ↑30 Sep 2020, 04:01 WTF? Including me?? I hardly know the guy?

Because you call yourself The Gratest.. He thinks he is of course!

Oh yeah, I definitely grate.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑30 Sep 2020, 05:06 Canelo Alvarez lawsuit against Golden Boy and DAZN re-filed in Los Angeles Superior Court

Monday was the deadline for attorneys for Canelo Alvarez to amend their complaint and re-file in the Central District Court of California. Well, Monday came and went without a re-filing. This is because it was re-filed in state court in California.

The lawsuit filed by the boxer was filed in federal court earlier this month but was dismissed by the Court on its own accord on Friday, September 11th due to a lack of jurisdiction. It had identified the Golden Boy and DAZN defendants as a corporation although they are an LLC.

The lawsuit appears to be the same one that was filed in federal court which alleges breach of contract on the part of Golden Boy Boxing. It states that when DAZN notified Golden Boy of its anticipatory breach due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, it did nothing in an attempt to cure the breach on behalf of Canelo. Although there is no contract between Canelo and DAZN, the fighter claims that the anticipatory breach caused Canelo damages. It alleges that DAZN intentionally interfered with Canelo’s contract with Golden Boy because it knew of Canelo’s contract and was unable to fulfill its contractual obligations to hold events per its agreement with Golden Boy.

In addition to monetary damages, Canelo is looking for a court order to break his promotional contract with Golden Boy.

MPO will have more on this soon.

Does anyone have a link to the State Court Complaint? Depending on what causes of action were pled, it might stay in state court this time.

bobcatbox wrote: ↑30 Sep 2020, 17:40

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑30 Sep 2020, 05:06 Canelo Alvarez lawsuit against Golden Boy and DAZN re-filed in Los Angeles Superior Court

Monday was the deadline for attorneys for Canelo Alvarez to amend their complaint and re-file in the Central District Court of California. Well, Monday came and went without a re-filing. This is because it was re-filed in state court in California.

The lawsuit filed by the boxer was filed in federal court earlier this month but was dismissed by the Court on its own accord on Friday, September 11th due to a lack of jurisdiction. It had identified the Golden Boy and DAZN defendants as a corporation although they are an LLC.

The lawsuit appears to be the same one that was filed in federal court which alleges breach of contract on the part of Golden Boy Boxing. It states that when DAZN notified Golden Boy of its anticipatory breach due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, it did nothing in an attempt to cure the breach on behalf of Canelo. Although there is no contract between Canelo and DAZN, the fighter claims that the anticipatory breach caused Canelo damages. It alleges that DAZN intentionally interfered with Canelo’s contract with Golden Boy because it knew of Canelo’s contract and was unable to fulfill its contractual obligations to hold events per its agreement with Golden Boy.

In addition to monetary damages, Canelo is looking for a court order to break his promotional contract with Golden Boy.

MPO will have more on this soon.

Does anyone have a link to the State Court Complaint? Depending on what causes of action were pled, it might stay in state court this time.

I previously posted the original complaint, which is supposedly almost identical to the revised one.

Here it is:

"Canelo Álvarez sues Dazn and Oscar De La Hoya for breach of $365m contract"

In that case it will definitely be staying in state court this time. DAZN, GBP, and DLH can’t remove it back to federal court due to De La Hoya being a citizen of California under 28 USC 1441(b)(2). If, in fact, he is arguably not domiciled in California, we could see some early delay tactics with another jurisdictional and removal fight. I’m not sure about DLH’s personal living so I’m not sure.

I’ll try to find a way to get a copy of the complaint, which is a public record.

Canelo's Legal Team Respond To DAZN's Request To Have Action Return To Federal Court

Saul ‘Canelo’ Alvarez and his legal team have responded to the action calling for their ongoing multimillion-dollar lawsuit to return to federal court.

Attorneys for Alvarez and SA Holiday Inc. have filed an amended Notice of Related Civil Cases, coming two business days after DAZN Media Inc.—one of several companies named in the original complaint—filed a separate action for a Notice of Removal from Los Angeles Superior Court on October 8, thus generating a new case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The notice submitted by Alvarez’s side calls for both cases to be assigned to and heard in the same court.

“Pursuant to Central District of California Local Rule 83-1.2.1 et seq. Plaintiffs Santos Saul Alvarez Barragan and SA Holiday, Inc., hereby provide notice that this action, as removed from Los Angeles Superior Court, is effectively a refiling of Alvarez et al. v. DAZN North America Inc., et al., and hereby request reassignment of this case to the Honorable Percy Anderson,” Gregory Smith, attorney for The Maloney Firm stated on Tuesday as part of a four-page amended notice, a copy of which has been obtained by Boxing Scene.

Mexico’s Alvarez (53-1-2, 36KOs) originally filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California on September 8, alleging breach of contract, intentional interference with contract, negligent interference with contract; fraud and concealment; and breach of fiduciary duty. The three-division champ is seeking damages of at least $280 million, the remaining balance on his contract with Golden Boy Promotions (GBP) for services provided to DAZN-USA upon their record-breaking 11-fight, $365 million deal reached in October 2018.

DAZN North America, Inc., DAZN Media Inc., DAZN US LLC., Perform Investment Limited (now DAZN Limited), Golden Boy Promotions LLC, Golden Boy Promotions Inc. and Oscar de la Hoya, Alvarez’s promoter are all named as defendants.

The case was presented to the Honorable Judge Percy Anderson of the U.S. District Court, who dismissed the case without prejudice on September 11 due to lack of jurisdiction, though with room for an amended filing to be completed by no later than close of business September 28.

Such steps were taken within that time frame, but with the case instead filed in state court with the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The federal case remained in chambers with Judge Anderson.

The law firm of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC, representing DAZN Media Inc., filed a Notice of Removal to Federal Court on October 8 in response to the active case, citing Diversity Jurisdiction as grounds for removal, alleging the “action satisfies the diversity requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), because the matter is between citizens of different states and citizens of foreign states, with citizens of the United States on either side of the action.”

Alvarez is a citizen of Mexico; DAZN Media, Inc. is a principal business in and a citizen of the State of New York while parent company DAZN Limited (nee Perform Investment Limited, as named in the complaint) is a business entity organized under the laws of the United Kingdom, with its principal places of business in London, England and the State of New York.

The filing by DAZN Media, Inc.—identified as “First Action” in Alvarez’s amended notice from Tuesday—was given a new case number and assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Second Action as filed by Alvarez calls for both cases to be heard in the same house, in accordance with Local Rule 83.1.3.1 of the Central District of California, which reads as follows:

L.R. 83-1.3.1 Notice of Related Civil Cases. It shall be the responsibility of the parties to promptly file a Notice of Related Cases whenever two or more civil cases filed in this District:

(a) arise from the same or a closely related transaction, happening, or event;

(b) call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or

(c) for other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.

As cited by Alvarez’s attorneys in the amended notice, “Both the Secondary Action (a removal from the LA Superior Court Action) and the Primary Action involve nine of the ten same causes of action, with the Secondary Action having one fewer cause of action than the Primary Action, asserted by the same Plaintiffs, Alvarez, against the same Defendants, and arising out of the exact same set of facts. In particular, both actions involve Alvarez alleging breach of contract and other related causes of action against Defendants for their repudiations of certain personal service contracts. As such, the Primary Action and Secondary Action arise from the same transaction and call for determination of the same or substantially related questions of law and fact.

“Assuming that either action proceeds beyond the pleadings stage, in both cases, the parties’ respective rights and obligations under the agreements and Alvarez’s damages will be at issue and will be determinative. Accordingly, there will almost certainly be complete overlap in discovery, motion practices, and trials in the Primary Action and Secondary Action. The parties would benefit from consistent rulings before the Court.”

As a court date has not yet been set for the case filed by DAZN Media, Inc., it would appear to lend that much more reason to consolidating both cases.

“Failure to make this a related case and have both cases heard by the Hon. Judge Anderson would create inefficiencies from the standpoint of judicial economy and would increase the risk of inconsistent adjudications,” notes Alvarez’s attorneys. “In contrast, if heard both heard by the Hon. Judge Anderson, only one court would have to review evidence, hear motions, and conduct trial. If the same court does not hear both cases, there is a risk that the Alvarez or Defendants will be deemed to have certain rights and obligations in one matter and without those rights and obligations in the other.

“For all of the foregoing reasons, it appears that the Secondary Action would benefit from a related case transfer. Alvarez prays that this Court move this case to the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson, the court of the related case, pursuant to L.R. 83-1.3.1 and General Order No. 19-03, II.I.2 Transfer.”

Alvarez has not fought since an 11th round knockout of Sergey Kovalev to win the light heavyweight title last November in Las Vegas. The bout came on the heels of the publicly revealed contentious relationship between the boxer and de la Hoya given events in the months preceding the fight.

Through it all, plans remained in place for Alvarez to return to the ring in May, where he was to challenge England’s Billy Joe Saunders—a two-time and reigning super middleweight titlist—in a bid to become a recognized four-division champion. The event was canceled due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, with efforts to get Alvarez back in the ring instead devolving into a financial and now lengthy legal war with Golden Boy and DAZN.

That’s a very complicated article! I’m not sure if I really understand it.

I could be wrong, but it superficially seems that multiple actions could potentially be processed at the same time, by the same court, with both Canelo and DAZN filing cases.

An article published by MMAPayout, which was written by a lawyer, asserts that DAZN wanted the case to be returned to federal court, where is was initially dismissed, in the hope it’ll be dismissed again (due to Canelo's legal team failing to properly name the defendants).

And the article detailed in the previous post in this thread, is suggesting that Canelo's legal team have filed a remand for the lawsuit to remain within state court jurisdiction instead.

Once again, I could be wrong about this second point, but it appears that the lawyers representing the defendants are primarily focussed on exploiting legal technicalities to defeat the lawsuit, rather than challenging the actual merits of Canelo’s complaint.

I’d love for someone that’s undergone legal training in the US to explain the current state of play, because I'm a little confused.

Meanwhile, Canelo sparring with heavyweight Frank Sanchez

https://talksport.com/sport/boxing/774363/

Canelo! Canelo! Canelo!!

DAZN’s Notice of Removal in Canelo lawsuit

Last Friday, attorneys for DAZN filed a Notice of Removal to federal court of Canelo Alvarez’s lawsuit against the digital platform and Golden Boy Boxing. The lawsuit now returns to federal court after it was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The lawsuit was removed to federal court based on two reasons. The first being that there was a “diversity” of parties which means that the parties to the lawsuit are from different states. Although it is legally possible to sue an entity that does business within a state where its headquarters are not located, the federal statute that DAZN uses to remove this case is that the party’s locations vary. First, they point out that Canelo is a citizen of Mexican although he resides part-time in San Diego. They also note that SA Holiday, Inc. another entity in this lawsuit in which Alvarez is an owner is registered in the state of Nevada. Further, DAZN identifies that its U.S. headquarters are located in New York and its corporate entity was filed in Delaware. Similarly, Golden Boy was registered as a company in Delaware. The northeastern state is known for corporate filings due to its gracious tax rules for corporations.

Secondly, DAZN argues that there is a “federal question” at issue. This pertains to the argument that there is a dispute related to a federal statute. Here, DAZN states that this action relates to the Federal Arbitration Act. The Canelo contract with Golden Boy and the DAZN-Golden Boy both refer to an arbitration clause.

Another compulsory requirement is that the lawsuit must be over $75,000 for it to be in federal court. Obviously, with Canelo wanting a bulk of his $365 million contract from Golden Boy, this threshold has been satisfied.

As I’ve highlighted in the past, the removal is an affirmative act, hence the “Notice” whereas if Canelo wants it back in state court, it would be a “Motion” to remand the case back to state court.

SA Holiday inc...Saul Alvarez Holiday. Lol.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑16 Oct 2020, 04:26 DAZN’s Notice of Removal in Canelo lawsuit

Last Friday, attorneys for DAZN filed a Notice of Removal to federal court of Canelo Alvarez’s lawsuit against the digital platform and Golden Boy Boxing. The lawsuit now returns to federal court after it was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The lawsuit was removed to federal court based on two reasons. The first being that there was a “diversity” of parties which means that the parties to the lawsuit are from different states. Although it is legally possible to sue an entity that does business within a state where its headquarters are not located, the federal statute that DAZN uses to remove this case is that the party’s locations vary. First, they point out that Canelo is a citizen of Mexican although he resides part-time in San Diego. They also note that SA Holiday, Inc. another entity in this lawsuit in which Alvarez is an owner is registered in the state of Nevada. Further, DAZN identifies that its U.S. headquarters are located in New York and its corporate entity was filed in Delaware. Similarly, Golden Boy was registered as a company in Delaware. The northeastern state is known for corporate filings due to its gracious tax rules for corporations.

Secondly, DAZN argues that there is a “federal question” at issue. This pertains to the argument that there is a dispute related to a federal statute. Here, DAZN states that this action relates to the Federal Arbitration Act. The Canelo contract with Golden Boy and the DAZN-Golden Boy both refer to an arbitration clause.

Another compulsory requirement is that the lawsuit must be over $75,000 for it to be in federal court. Obviously, with Canelo wanting a bulk of his $365 million contract from Golden Boy, this threshold has been satisfied.

As I’ve highlighted in the past, the removal is an affirmative act, hence the “Notice” whereas if Canelo wants it back in state court, it would be a “Motion” to remand the case back to state court.

I still think that De La Hoya as a party to the action should defeat diversity jurisdiction. I’m not sure about law on the FAA as a basis for federal question removal under 1331. Normally you have to assert a federal question in your actual cause of action, so this is a pretty far stretch. I won’t be surprised if this gets sent back to state court.

Canelo Lawsuit: Contracts And Statement Of Arbitration Ordered By Court

Saul ‘Canelo’ Alvarez remains in search of answers regarding the language in the contract existing between his promoter and broadcast partner.

By Monday, the courtroom overseeing their multimillion-dollar lawsuit will have that information.

It was a good week for Alvarez’s attorneys, who saw a ruling in their favor regarding its Notice of Related Civil Cases filing, requesting for the two existing complaints in this ongoing legal battle to be heard in the same courtroom.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California agreed with Alvarez, as both their case along with the one filed by DAZN Media, Inc.—requesting the case be moved back to federal court—are now in the hands of Hon. Percy Anderson.

A hard deadline is now in place for the defendants—DAZN, Golden Boy Promotions and Oscar de la Hoya, et al—to submit the existing contracts to the court.

“The Court orders the parties to meet and confer and file, by no later than October 26, 2020, copies of both contracts at issue in the litigation,” Judge Anderson stated to all involved parties in an official order, a copy of which has been obtained by Boxing Scene. “Although the Declaration of David Livshiz (one of several attorneys representing DAZN) filed in support of the Notice of Removal appears to quote the arbitration clause of one of the two contracts, neither the Complaint nor the Notice of Removal attaches the contracts.

“Because the contracts contain confidentiality provisions, the Court authorizes the parties to file those contracts under seal.”

DAZN Media, Inc.—one of nine specific defendants named in Alvarez’s lawsuit seeking damages of at least $280 million—file a Notice of Removal earlier in the month, seeking for the case to be moved from Los Angeles Superior Court back into federal court where the case first began this past September. Alvarez initially filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court on September 8, with the case dismissed without prejudice just three days later due to lack of jurisdiction.

The order from Hon. Anderson in the dismissal was for Alvarez’s team to amend its filing to accurately identify the defendants and their location. Such measures were taken by The Maloney Firm, representing Alvarez and S.A. Holiday Inc., only for the case to have been filed in state court rather than resubmitted in the federal courthouse.

Rather than respond to receipt of acknowledgement, the law firm of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC—representing DAZN Media Inc.—filed a Notice of Removal to Federal Court on October 8, citing Diversity Jurisdiction as grounds for removal. Ground for the filing alleged that the case is a matter of citizens of different states and citizens of foreign states.

Alvarez is a citizen of Mexico; DAZN Media, Inc. is a principal business in and a citizen of the State of New York while parent company DAZN Limited (nee Perform Investment Limited, as named in the complaint) is a business entity organized under the laws of the United Kingdom, with its principal places of business in London, England and the State of New York.

Mexico’s Alvarez (53-1-2, 36KOs) filed a complaint alleging breach of contract, intentional interference with contract, negligent interference with contract; fraud and concealment; and breach of fiduciary duty. The pound-for-pound king and three-division titlist is seeking damages of at least $280 million, the remaining balance on his contract with Golden Boy Promotions (GBP) for services provided to DAZN-USA upon their record-breaking 11-fight, $365 million deal reached in October 2018.

DAZN North America, Inc., DAZN Media Inc., DAZN US LLC., Perform Investment Limited (now DAZN Limited), Golden Boy Promotions LLC, Golden Boy Promotions Inc. and Oscar de la Hoya, Alvarez’s promoter are all named as defendants.

A major sticking point in the case is whom exactly owes Alvarez the money if in fact he is entitled to a full payout. It has been learned that the terms of the deal call for DAZN to pay Golden Boy Promotions at least $40 million per show involving Alvarez, who is not directly involved in that contract other than his promoter delivering his services.

Golden Boy has a separate contract with Alvarez, calling for the California-based promotional outfit to pay Alvarez a minimum of $35 million per fight which began with his May 2019 middleweight title unification win over Daniel Jacobs.

Alvarez is just three fights into his 11-fight deal, the first fight coming at a discount of sorts as he earned $15 million for a 3rd round knockout of Rocky Fielding in December 2018. Alvarez has not fought since an 11th round knockout of Sergey Kovalev to claim a light heavyweight belt last November in Las Vegas. The fight came days after the revelation of the fractured relationship between Alvarez and de la Hoya, beginning with the manner in which he was stripped of one of his middleweight titles last summer.

Ordered negotiations with IBF mandatory challenger Sergiy Derevyanchenko instead exposed a breakdown in communication between Alvarez and Golden Boy Promotions. Several deadlines were missed along with ordered purse bids delayed before a decision was reached for Alvarez to forcefully vacate his title.

Soon thereafter came an agreement to face Kovalev, although the damage was done by that point. A decision was made to move forward in a professional capacity, with that part of the relationship to have continued in the form of a shot at unbeaten super middleweight titlist Billy Joe Saunders this past May.

The event fell through due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, which has proved problematic in getting Alvarez and DAZN on the same page for financial terms regarding a fight absent fans given the current global health crisis. Alvarez conditionally agreed to a purse reduction, though the two sides never came close to agreeing on a specific figure.

As time was wasted, Alvarez instead took measures to get what he feels is contractually owed to him. The bombshell lawsuit has prompted all involved parties to further discuss a plan for the sport’s leading attraction to return to the ring sooner rather than later.

An hours-long meeting held in late September offered hope for resolution. Instead, Alvarez proceeded with his ongoing lawsuit, with the complaint making the rounds before winding up back in the original courthouse as where the case began nearly two months ago.

Previous comments from the defendant side suggest that both DAZN and Golden Boy prefer for this case to move forward to arbitration. Before that can happen, the court needs to proof of such terms given the Notice of Removal filed by DAZN Media suggesting such existing language.

“The Court additionally orders the parties to file a Statement Regarding Arbitration by no later than October 26, 2020,” requested judge Anderson. “Indicating whether any party plans to seek to enforce the arbitration provisions allegedly contained in the contracts, and any defenses to the enforcement of those alleged arbitration provisions that a party plans to assert.”

DAZN have still got a date on hold in December... For Canelo vs. TBA

Canelo is a free agent now

Cent0089 wrote: ↑06 Nov 2020, 13:04 Canelo is a free agent now

Wow. Got a notification from Sky Sports and ESPN.

It says that’s he’s declaring himself a free agent. Have GBP said anything?

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑06 Nov 2020, 13:42

Cent0089 wrote: ↑06 Nov 2020, 13:04 Canelo is a free agent now

Wow. Got a notification from Sky Sports and ESPN.

It says that’s he’s declaring himself a free agent. Have GBP said anything?

not yet probably. Hopefully this will be green light for Alvarez - Charlo fight