Plaintiffs File Answer to UFC's Motion to Dismiss as well as Transfer of Venue.

The UFC and many former fighters of the organization have been involved in an antitrust case for the better part of this and last year.  The fighters named in the suit are all former employees of Zuffa, LLC. which include and are not limited too: John Fitch, Cung Le, Nate Quarry, and Kyle Kingsburry.  These plaintiffs allege that the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) engaged in anticompetitive practices that gave the promotion monopoly power which led also to monopsony power as well.

The UFC in its motion for transfer of venue stated that it desired to transfer the case from the Northern District of California to the Court in Clark County, Nevada citing hardship and the availability of witnesses that would testify.  In addition, the UFC also invoked the Choice of Law clause within its contract agreement, signed by all fighters under its banner stipulating that Nevada state law is to be followed when a dispute of contract arises.

In the answer filed last week, the plaintiffs also alleged hardship and the fact that many parties named reside in the San Francisco Bay Area including a number of elite MMA Gyms as well as video game publishing company Electronic Arts, which is also named in the case at hand.  Also they state that because the dispute does not arise out of the terms of the contract themselves, then the Choice of Law clause is non-applicable to the matter at hand.

The other motion which was to dismiss the case altogether, alleges the validity of the claims the plaintiffs have brought against the promotion.  Which they allege have no merit and that the claims themselves do not rise to the level of satisfying the standard set by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly in laying specific facts that lead to an antitrust claim.

The UFC probably filed this motion so that the plaintiffs could play their hand to lay out their exact argument, but the plaintiffs did not amend any claims or augment any other claims either.  However what plaintiffs did instead was reiterate the arguments of their original complaint.  In a sense, they want a trial to adjudicate the matter and to determine whether plaintiffs complaints have merit to proceed.

These are some accusations filed within the complaint:

• the UFC using its brand power has depicted itself as the elite MMA Promotion in the world and all the others are to be considered "minor leagues" or feeder promotions which the UFC then can sign those organizations athletes into its roster if deemed a caliber athlete of the organization.  The plaintiffs use evidence from UFC press statements and articles from financial investment firms like Moody's and S&P.
• Athletes who sign for the organization are signed to exclusive contracts which include the athlete's image in perpetuity, essentially preventing him or her from the use of his or her image to promote other events not related to the UFC
• those athletes who are signed to non-exclusive contracts are penalized monetarily when they decide to fight for other organizations.
• The UFC brand has created an environment of little bargaining power or leverage to its athletes resulting in below market compensation for their services.  However, the UFC provides insurance to all of its athletes in conjunction to fighter purses so this may contribute to a claim of fair compensation on the other side.
• The UFC has also signed exclusive sponsorships preventing different companies from competing for recognition with athletes and allowing athletes to choose which brands they promote.
• Image in perpetuity prevents other organizations from using a fighter's image to promote other properties like video games for other promotions.  This allegation can be evidenced that before EA had acquired the exclusive rights to the UFC roster, it had produced EA MMA which Randy Couture, the only UFC fighter who had retained his own image rights was allowed to participate in the game.

 A hearing has been set for July in relation to both of these motions, and it will be interesting to see if this case will continue because this is already starting to look like a very costly process and ZUFFA has already stated that they are in it for the long hall.

As always MMAlaw.org will try to keep you abreast of all the details of any new developments in this case.  If you have any questions or comments they can be posted down below or via Google+ or via twitter @mmalegal2016.