A federal judge in the Southern District of New York has denied the World Boxing Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case involving a boxer, who claimed the sanctioning organization violated the Ali Act.
Plaintiff Souleymane M’baye was repeatedly denied the opportunity to fight in a tight bought, leading to his claim under the Ali Act.
The Ali Act provides, in relevant part, that: “A sanctioning organization shall not be entitled to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, in connection with a boxing match, until, with respect to a change in the rating of a boxer previously rated by such organization in the top 10 boxers, the organization –
”(1) posts a copy, within 7 days of such change, on its Internet website or home page, if any, including an explanation of such change, for a period of not less than 30 days; and
”(2) provides a copy of the rating change and explanation to an association to which at least a majority of the State boxing commissions belong.”
The district court went on to note that the Ali Act provides for a private right of action:
“Any boxer who suffers economic injury as a result of a violation of any provision of this chapter may bring an action in the appropriate Federal or State court and recover the damages suffered, court costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses.
Thus, under 15 U.S.C. § 6309(d), a “plaintiff can recover damages if he can demonstrate that he suffered an economic injury as a result of defendant’s violation of the Ali Act.”
The WBA argued that it is entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff “cannot establish causation, i.e., that the WBA’s failure to post notice of the ratings change caused plaintiff to suffer an economic injury.”
The court disagreed, finding that the “plaintiff has provided some evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that he suffered economic injury as a result of the WBA’s violation of the Ali Act’s notice requirements. Nothing more is required. See Main Events Productions, L.L.C. v. Lacy, 358 F. Supp. 2d 391, 396-97 (D.N.J. 2004) (denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment because Lacy provided some evidence that he suffered economic injury arising from defendant’s alleged violation of Ali Act’s disclosure requirements).
”First, there is evidence that plaintiff lost significant purses as a result of not being notified in a timely manner that he was being bypassed for championship bouts on three occasions. (DeOreo Decl. Ex. B). For example, plaintiff earned $60,000 for fighting Harris on July 2003 (id.), and he would likely have been privy to similar purses had he not been bypassed for the other championship bouts. Moreover, during Fall 2005 when plaintiff was denied a title fight for the third time, his promotion agreement with Sports Network Ltd. also provided that he was to receive at least 100,000 euros for a title fight. (Id. at 119-21; Ex. E). n1 Accordingly, there is evidence that the lack of notification left plaintiff unable to protect his rights, and in turn, caused him to lose a substantial amount of money.
“Second, if plaintiff had been notified earlier, then he also could have sought to protect his rights as the official contender by negotiating a “step-aside” fee. (DeOreo Decl. Ex. F). A ‘step-aside’ fee is a payment that a champion provides to the official contender — i.e., the opponent that a boxing association deems to be the mandatory opponent — so that the official contender will ‘step aside’ and allow the champion to fight a non-mandatory opponent. See Echols v. Pelullo, 377 F.3d 272, 274 n.1 (3d Cir. 2004). In this case, plaintiff never received a ‘step-aside’ fee for any of the three instances where he was bypassed for championship bouts. Thus, this is also evidence that lack of notice caused economic harm to plaintiff.”
Souleymane M’baye v. World Boxing Association; S.D.N.Y.; 05 Civ. 9581 (DC), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23173; 3/21/07
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Burstein, P.C., By: Judd Burstein, Esq., Peter B. Schalk, Esq., Matthew DeOreo, Esq., New York, NY. (for defendant) Smith Alling LANE, P.S., By: Robert E. Mack, Esq., Michael A. McAleenan, Esq., Tacoma, WA, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, By: Brian J. Carey, Esq., I. Michael Bayda, Esq., Jay A. Katz, Esq., New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendant.
