Eddie Hearn v Jake Paul Lawsuit
Posted: 13 Dec 2022, 13:44
EDDIE HEARN VS. JAKE PAUL LAWSUIT UPDATE
Attorneys for plaintiffs Eddie Hearn and Matchroom and defendant Jake Paul have jointly filed a status report in United States federal court summarizing the defamation case against Paul, who made the unverified claim that Matchroom paid off judge Glenn Feldman to influence the outcome of two separate bouts. Here is the report, lightly edited only to remove legal terms:
Eddie Hearn and Matchroom's statement of the case: On or about September 20, 2022, Paul made defamatory statements regarding Matchroom and Hearn, stating that Matchroom and Hearn bribed longtime boxing judge Glenn Feldman to score two boxing matches in favor of fighters whom Matchroom promotes. The fights subject to the defamatory remarks were (1) Katie Taylor vs. Amanda Serrano, which occurred at Madison Square Garden in April of 2022, and (2) Oleksandr Usyk vs. Anthony Joshua, which occurred in Saudi Arabia on August 20, 2022. Importantly, Matchroom and Hearn were the promoters for Taylor, who came out victorious, as well as for Joshua, who suffered defeat. Feldman was one of three judges for each of those boxing matches.
Paul, on the other hand, and his boxing promotional company, Most Valuable Promotions, LLC (“MVP”), promote Serrano and, along with Matchroom, were the co-promoters of, an earned a
profit-share from, Taylor-Serrano, pursuant to a co-promotion agreement between Matchroom’s New York-based subsidiary, Matchroom Boxing USA, LLC, on one hand, and MVP on the other.
Paul’s statements, which were highly-publicized due, in large part, to his notoriety and vast social media following, were first published online by iFL.tv, and then subsequently re-published and
replayed by several news outlets throughout the world, as well as being shared and republished on countless social media pages. Specifically, Paul stated, in pertinent part, as follows:
I still think Amanda Serrano won the fight … And then you see this judge Glenn Feldman, who had the biggest gap between Serrano and Taylor. Pretty much every one though it was a draw… or Amanda won … But there’s this judge Glenn Feldman who scored it such a big gap for Taylor, gave rounds that Amanda clearly won, to Taylor. Then this judge, Glenn Feldman, shows up in Saudi and scores Anthony Joshua to win the fight when everyone watched the fight … it’s not a split decision. Usyk had a runaway victory, clearly won the fight and this judge Glenn Feldman gives it to Anthony Joshua. It’s like a repeated crime here … I’m going to call it out in boxing because it’s bullshit.
Clearly, this guy is getting paid money by Matchroom Boxing. [And that’s] a bold statement and accusation that I don’t take lightly but it’s just blatantly obvious and they’re not even trying to hide it. You would think they’d get a different judge … to try and hide the corruption that they’re bringing to this sport but it’s just so blatantly obvious.
Indeed, because Paul’s defamatory statements have caused, and continue to cause, significant financial and reputational harm to the Plaintiffs, and because the false statements were made with malicious intent, including the intent of harming Matchroom––a direct competitor of Paul and MVP– –Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in connection therewith.
Jake Paul’s statement of the case: Without performing a choice of law analysis, and regardless of which state/territory law applies, plaintiff Hearn does not allege that the purportedly defamatory comments referred to him or that he was damaged. Instead, his Complaint repeatedly alleges that only his co-plaintiff Matchroom was the subject of the “accusations” and is entitled to damages. Hence, Hearn fails to state a claim for defamation.
Moreover, Matchroom and Feldman [who is seeking to join the case as a co-plaintiff] acknowledge that they are limited-purpose public figures. Thus, they must plausibly allege that Paul acted with actual malice, [whether this case is decided] under New York law or Puerto Rico common law. However, the Complaints’ nonconclusory allegations do not raise a plausible inference of actual malice. In all events, Paul’s statements are expressions of opinion or hyperbole, and thus cannot give rise to a defamation claim. Accordingly, both Complaints fail to state a claim.
Status: Currently, Feldman has filed a motion to intervene, which Paul does not oppose. In addition to Feldman’s pending motion to intervene, Paul has requested a pre-motion conference to file a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The parties also anticipate filing summary judgment motions at the close of discovery. While both parties are ultimately open to discussing a potential settlement in this case, they have yet to engage in settlement discussions.
Attorneys for plaintiffs Eddie Hearn and Matchroom and defendant Jake Paul have jointly filed a status report in United States federal court summarizing the defamation case against Paul, who made the unverified claim that Matchroom paid off judge Glenn Feldman to influence the outcome of two separate bouts. Here is the report, lightly edited only to remove legal terms:
Eddie Hearn and Matchroom's statement of the case: On or about September 20, 2022, Paul made defamatory statements regarding Matchroom and Hearn, stating that Matchroom and Hearn bribed longtime boxing judge Glenn Feldman to score two boxing matches in favor of fighters whom Matchroom promotes. The fights subject to the defamatory remarks were (1) Katie Taylor vs. Amanda Serrano, which occurred at Madison Square Garden in April of 2022, and (2) Oleksandr Usyk vs. Anthony Joshua, which occurred in Saudi Arabia on August 20, 2022. Importantly, Matchroom and Hearn were the promoters for Taylor, who came out victorious, as well as for Joshua, who suffered defeat. Feldman was one of three judges for each of those boxing matches.
Paul, on the other hand, and his boxing promotional company, Most Valuable Promotions, LLC (“MVP”), promote Serrano and, along with Matchroom, were the co-promoters of, an earned a
profit-share from, Taylor-Serrano, pursuant to a co-promotion agreement between Matchroom’s New York-based subsidiary, Matchroom Boxing USA, LLC, on one hand, and MVP on the other.
Paul’s statements, which were highly-publicized due, in large part, to his notoriety and vast social media following, were first published online by iFL.tv, and then subsequently re-published and
replayed by several news outlets throughout the world, as well as being shared and republished on countless social media pages. Specifically, Paul stated, in pertinent part, as follows:
I still think Amanda Serrano won the fight … And then you see this judge Glenn Feldman, who had the biggest gap between Serrano and Taylor. Pretty much every one though it was a draw… or Amanda won … But there’s this judge Glenn Feldman who scored it such a big gap for Taylor, gave rounds that Amanda clearly won, to Taylor. Then this judge, Glenn Feldman, shows up in Saudi and scores Anthony Joshua to win the fight when everyone watched the fight … it’s not a split decision. Usyk had a runaway victory, clearly won the fight and this judge Glenn Feldman gives it to Anthony Joshua. It’s like a repeated crime here … I’m going to call it out in boxing because it’s bullshit.
Clearly, this guy is getting paid money by Matchroom Boxing. [And that’s] a bold statement and accusation that I don’t take lightly but it’s just blatantly obvious and they’re not even trying to hide it. You would think they’d get a different judge … to try and hide the corruption that they’re bringing to this sport but it’s just so blatantly obvious.
Indeed, because Paul’s defamatory statements have caused, and continue to cause, significant financial and reputational harm to the Plaintiffs, and because the false statements were made with malicious intent, including the intent of harming Matchroom––a direct competitor of Paul and MVP– –Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in connection therewith.
Jake Paul’s statement of the case: Without performing a choice of law analysis, and regardless of which state/territory law applies, plaintiff Hearn does not allege that the purportedly defamatory comments referred to him or that he was damaged. Instead, his Complaint repeatedly alleges that only his co-plaintiff Matchroom was the subject of the “accusations” and is entitled to damages. Hence, Hearn fails to state a claim for defamation.
Moreover, Matchroom and Feldman [who is seeking to join the case as a co-plaintiff] acknowledge that they are limited-purpose public figures. Thus, they must plausibly allege that Paul acted with actual malice, [whether this case is decided] under New York law or Puerto Rico common law. However, the Complaints’ nonconclusory allegations do not raise a plausible inference of actual malice. In all events, Paul’s statements are expressions of opinion or hyperbole, and thus cannot give rise to a defamation claim. Accordingly, both Complaints fail to state a claim.
Status: Currently, Feldman has filed a motion to intervene, which Paul does not oppose. In addition to Feldman’s pending motion to intervene, Paul has requested a pre-motion conference to file a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The parties also anticipate filing summary judgment motions at the close of discovery. While both parties are ultimately open to discussing a potential settlement in this case, they have yet to engage in settlement discussions.
