UFC & COMPANY VS. NEW YORK STATE: CIVIL SUIT CLIFF NOTES

Posted on | November 17, 2011 | No Comments

By: Rich Bergeron

Zuffa, LLC filed suit on November 15th against the State of New York, citing the unconstitutional nature of the state’s ban on professional mixed martial arts. A host of other plaintiffs who have varying interests in competing in and/or profiting from MMA-related business are also parties to the suit. Though there is no request for financial damages beyond legal fees, the complaint seeks an injunction against the ban and various official declarations regarding the unconstitutional framework of the anti-pro MMA measure.

Since the explanation of the claims cover more than 100 pages of text and another 20 pages of exhibits, and since I have some first-hand experience with legal issues regarding the First Amendment, I thought an abridged version of the complaint was in order. I knew it would be useful for MMA fans everywhere to read a more compact, comprehensive, condensed and succinct summary of the case rather than having to read the entire book-length manuscript. So here is the Cliff Notes version of what’s sure to be a contentious and controversial piece of litigation that could potentially be a landmark case for athletes everywhere.

[mpinpage]

THE PREMISE:

THE PLAINTIFFS:

The class of plaintiffs come from all walks of MMA life. Leading the pack is UFC’s parent company Zuffa, LLC. Fighters with connections to the Empire State who reportedly want to fight there are also named as petitioning parties. Additionally, MMA hobbyists and fans are included in the mix along with those who operate businesses catering to fans and fighters. The broad cross-section of personalities is most likely purposely designed to illustrate how New York’s professional MMA ban impacts a variety of citizens inside and outside the state who enjoy and support the sport. Rather than sue as a single entity, Zuffa brass obviously decided it would be a much better public relations strategy to seek relief on behalf of a true mosaic of the MMA-loving population. Unfortunately, though other professional MMA organizations are cited and mentioned repeatedly in the complaint, none are featured as plaintiffs.

Jon “Bones” Jones: Jones (14-1) is one of the most popular young fighters in the UFC. His dynamic striking and all-around impressive skill helped garner him a shot at the light heavyweight title, which he won from Mauricio Rua in March of 2011. The title bout put Jones on the MMA map and made him and overnight celebrity. He’s since signed multiple lucrative sponsorship and endorsement deals including a contract worth over $1 million from sneaker giant K-Swiss. Jones grew up in Rochester, New York and now lives with his family in Ithaca, New York. The suit states: “Jones would like to perform MMA live in his home state, where his many friends, family, neighbors, and supporters could come and cheer him on. He wants to fight in Madison Square Garden like his role model Muhammad Ali, but cannot do so because of the Live Professional MMA Ban.”

Gina “Conviction” Carano: Carano (7-1) is widely recognized as “the face of women’s MMA” despite the fact that she has not had a single MMA fight since August of 2009 when she suffered her first loss against Cristiane “Cyborg” Santos. She has no scheduled fights on the horizon, though she explained in recent interviews that she hopes to return to the sport sometime next year once her promotional tour for her starring role in the movie Haywire is behind her. It is ironic that Carano is connected to this case considering UFC President Dana White’s critical commentary on women’s MMA and his repeated insistence that women would never fight in the UFC octagon. The suit claims Carano fights to prove stereotypes don’t apply when it comes to her fighting career and that “…a woman, like herself, can compete in MMA and have a meaningful career that showcases, rather than hides, her gender. Were it not for the Live Professional MMA Ban, Carano would fight professionally in New York.” Carano grew up in Texas and attended college in the Las Vegas, Nevada area. She has no direct ties to New York like some of the other individual plaintiffs do.

Frankie “The Answer” Edgar: Edgar (14-1-1) is the current UFC Lightweight Champion. Edgar is a native of Toms River, New Jersey where he was born on October 16th, 1981. Edgar enjoyed the opportunity to fight for the UFC in his home state in November of 2007 when he beat Spencer Fisher at UFC 78 in Newark, New Jersey. It was his third UFC fight, and he won by unanimous decision. Edgar’s had three wars with Gray Maynard with one ending in a draw, another ending in his first and only loss, and the most recent battle ending with a decisive win for Edgar by 4th-round knockout. Edgar’s eager to fight in New York according to the suit:

Matt “The Hammer” Hamill: Hamill (10-4) announced his retirement from the UFC after back-to-back losses to Quinton “Rampage” Jackson and Alexander Gustafsson earlier this year. Hamill is deaf, but he is able to speak fairly well despite his disability. Adding Hamill’s name to the roll of plaintiffs is an obvious and shameful ploy to target the sensitivities of the presiding judge and appeal to the general public. Hamill is also a current resident of Utica, New York, so he helps satisfy jurisdictional requirements in addition to the sympathy vote factor he adds to the litigation. Hamill has an incredible story of facing adversity and beating it.  Hamill is a human interest gold mine. He is even the subject of a recent movie about his life. Click here to read more about Matt’s life story. The UFC is pulling every cent of influence they possibly can from touting this disabled former fighter’s diverse background and close association with their brand. Hamill apparently wants to return the favor with an MMA-themed sports bar in his hometown of Utica, the suit explains.  He believes he will attract more customers to his bar if there is no professional MMA ban in New York State.

Brian “All American” Stann: Stann (11-4) started fighting professionally in January of 2006 at Sportfight 14 “Resolution” in Portland, Oregon. He would skyrocket right into a Zuffa career after that debut win against Aaron Stark by first round knockout. He won his next 5 fights under the World Extreme Cagefighting banner before suffering his first career loss at against Steve Cantwell at WEC 35. He wound up winning two out of three fights against Cantwell, including their final rematch at UFC Fight Night 19. Stann’s only UFC losses have come against Krzysztof Soszynski, Phil Davis, and Chael Sonnen. Stann’s inclusion in this suit is highly symbolic. He lives up to his catchy nickname due to a long period of service to his country starting with his stint as a U.S. Naval Academy student. He also played linebacker on the Navy football team. Between his graduation from Annapolis in 2003 and his May, 2008 voluntary and honorable discharge from active duty in the U.S. Marines, Stann’s garnered tremendous respect and achieved commendations that include The Silver Star. He is quite literally an American hero. Stann’s used his name recognition and the spotlight generated by the UFC events he competes in to highlight the cause of the United States serviceman and recognize wounded veterans. The suit claims Stann also idolizes Muhammad Ali and would accordingly be honored to fight at Madison Square Garden:

Zuffa, LLC d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship: The most influential, successful, and popular Mixed Martial Arts league in the world flexes their muscle in this lawsuit, but the company represents the only formal organization or actual business named as a plaintiff in the case. Other companies are named in portions of the case explaining both the history of the sport and the current landscape for both the UFC and their competitors in the marketplace. Much is made about how much safer the climate for fighters is today in the UFC compared to how it was in 1997 when the New York ban went into effect. There is also plenty of space devoted to explaining how important the Fox network deal is going to be for the UFC. The complaint also touts the multiple major-league corporate sponsors of the league, including the United States Marines.

Danielle Hobeika: Hobeika is a Harvard graduate and MMA practitioner who also dabbles in grappling and freestyle wrestling. She is additionally a talented photographer and Web-site designer. As a resident of New York City, the suit claims the ban impedes Hobeika’s ability to compete in amateur MMA locally (though the suit states plainly that the ban does not prohibit amateur MMA in the state). The lack of professional events in the area also makes it harder for Hobeika to move forward with her hopes of designing and maintaining a Web-site dedicated to the New York MMA scene.

Beth and Donna Hurrle: These New-York based MMA bloggers are the founders and editors of Gal’s Guide to MMA. They have a popular Web-site where they wrote an article about their suit and their role in it. The sisters explained in the piece: “According to the complaint, ‘The Live Professional MMA Ban is written so broadly that, in addition to prohibiting the constitutionally protected activity of professional MMA fighters and fans, it also prohibits myriad other forms of speech and expression that are protected by the First Amendment, both inside and outside of New York.’  The fact that Beth and I blog about MMA in NY, that UFC billboards appear in Times Square, and that UFC viewing parties take place at Madison Square Garden can all be considered violations of the ban. We imagine this will be a somewhat long process, but that’s all right so long as at the end of this we’re sitting in Madison Square Garden watching Jon Jones in the Octagon.  We’ll keep you posted on any new developments when we can.”

Steve Kardian: Just Google Steve Kardian, and you will soon discover this man is a veritable human weapon with a vast amount of experience in training in and teaching self defense. Kardian’s inclusion seems to be due mostly to his law enforcement connections, notoriety and influence on the media. The lawsuit describes his glowing resume best:

Joseph Lozito: Lozito is a Philadelphia native who took out a violent New York suspect engaged in a 28-hour stabbing spree. Lozito credited being a 20-year fan of MMA with saving his life and preventing more carnage in the case. Lozito suffered a severe black eye and a slashed skull in the scuffle to disarm the knife-wielding perpetrator and received widespread media attention for his heroic deed. Lozito wound up requiring multiple staples and stitches to close his severe wounds. The 23-year-old spree killer murdered four people and injured four others before Lozito used mixed martial arts tactics he learned from watching televised events to defend himself when his own life was threatened. Lozito’s story is included to send the message that MMA actually saves lives and has the potential to prevent violent criminal acts.  Lozito being in the right place at the right time as a fan of the sport likely prevented a tragedy from spiraling out of control into a massacre, so his story provides one of the most extreme examples of how MMA can benefit New Yorkers.

Erik Owings: Owings is an experienced MMA fighter who fought in the now-defunct International Fight League. Owings is currently a trainer and gym owner. He also happens to be the creator of UFC Welterweight Champion George St. Pierre’s “Rushfit” training program. He lives in New York and runs the Mushin MMA gym near Union Square in New York City. He is also active in charitable efforts impacting troubled youth by using principals from MMA to promote discipline and self-respect. The lawsuit claims Owings “…believes that his teaching of MMA, at his Mushin Mixed Martial Arts academy and elsewhere in New York, is jeopardized by the vagueness and overbreadth of the Live Professional MMA Ban.”

Chris Reitz: Reitz is an amateur MMA practitioner and avid fan of the sport. He has one lone amateur bout under his belt as of this writing, which he won in 2006 by guillotine choke at an Ocean City, New Jersey event. The suit explains that Reitz would like to compete in amateur MMA events in New York and watch live professional MMA events there, but the current ban makes those prospects difficult to pursue.

Jennifer Santiago: Santiago is an amateur boxer who began pursuing MMA fights after competing in Action-Movie-Star Chuck Norris’ World Combat League. That organization had more of a kickboxing format with battles waged on a circular, padded mat rather than in a ring or cage. Santiago is a New York native who now lives in Brooklyn and maintains a passion for MMA. She is a certified boxing and kickboxing instructor with her own training business in addition to being a motivational speaker. She compiled a 13-2 World Combat League record, won two Golden Gloves championships as a boxer, and also competed in the K-1 kickboxing league. The suit claims she would attend live professional MMA events in New York if the ban were lifted.

THE POINT:

Though the cause is noble and worthy of fighting for, the method is questionable. This lawsuit comes at New York during a tumultuous time for the state and city of the same name. Occupy Wall Street is causing enormous headaches for the legal system in New York with so many arrests lately bound to clog the courts and the protest movement putting such a strain on the civil servants who must deal with the madness on a daily basis. The case hits the state below the belt at the worst possible time. Some of the fighters selected to be plaintiffs are also purposely chosen because of the human interest factor in their background. In the cases of Gina Carano and Matt Hamill, their compelling and diverse life experiences are being exploited by the UFC in a shameful and sleazy manner to generate drama and publicity.

The idea is to overturn the ban of live professional MMA across New York State for ALL those who enjoy watching, shaping and participating in the sport. While the litigation’s language attacks the current ban for being “overbroad” the field of plaintiffs in this complaint aren’t really broad enough. Every MMA organization that has the capacity and desire to someday put on a fight card in New York should have a seat at the table in this matter. Multiple other national and worldwide entities are mentioned in passing but not named as plaintiffs. As a fairly capable legal analyst, I know any suit can be brought on behalf or against what are called “Does” as in John or Jane Doe. This is useful when an entire class of people are affected by a certain situation that a suit arises from. An attorney can sue on behalf of a vast number of names unknown to represent a wide swath of the general public who deserve relief based on a particular cause of action. An attorney can also take the time to call and speak with the principals of other major corporations who might be interested in joining this kind of suit. It seems the UFC did not bother to shop the case around much and went with personable individuals with interesting back stories rather than reaching out to some of the other major leagues promoting the sport. Zuffa is a giant attention hog to put it bluntly.

The case reads more like a historically accurate novel based on a true story than anything. It does not seem to be grounded solidly in sound legal theory, but the basic tenets are valid. The most “gotcha” aspect of the case is the fact that the ban is so vaguely and broadly written that it could potentially threaten a multitude of activities that feed off the sport of MMA. These efforts fall outside the act of holding an official live pro MMA event, and the ban is not regularly enforced to the letter of the law when in comes to these situations. The problem is the ban essentially criminalizes active support of professional mixed martial arts across the state. Even in the face of potential enforcement of the ban’s loose language, MMA’s growth is happening at such a rapid rate that the ban’s literal language could not possibly be uniformly enforced. Another great strength of the litigation is the whole stated reasoning behind the creation of the ban in the first place. Detractors of MMA in New York voiced serious concerns with what kind of “message” the sport was sending to youth back around the time of the 1997 passage of the ban. This case is relying on mixed martial arts being classified as the ultimate “freedom of expression,” so it actually supports the petitioners when the opposition has a history of adamantly insisting the sport sends any message–even a bad one.

The most significant handicap this lawsuit faces is that it may not have the legs to become landmark litigation. The Pandora’s Box effect regarding the precedents this case could set if it’s successful may have an impact on a huge cross section of society’s athletes. The players involved in the current NBA lockout and looming NHL labor struggles might also benefit from classifying their right to play their respective sports as a free speech issue. Also, appeals courts have been reluctant to interfere with states’ rights issues, and if a New York judge assigned to this case is able to dismiss the case or cut it off before it gains any serious momentum, an appeal may not help.  Finally, the case is long on story and background and short on cited precedent cases with similar scenarios and outcomes.

It would be fantastic if the law were not so complicated and New York was not so stubborn about approving live professional MMA events within the state. Unfortunately, a case like this could take three to four years to gain any traction whatsoever. It is essentially only going to be able to piss the sport’s critics off in the early going and won’t do any meaningful damage to the state’s staunch opposition of MMA unless a sympathetic judge can move it forward.

THE LEGAL BEAGLE BEHIND THE FILING:

If any lawyer can pull this case off, it’s the guy who calls himself the lead attorney on the case. Barry E. Friederman is a creative and dynamic legal professional. He’s a professor of law at NYU, and he specializes in constitutional law, which this case is grounded in. The comprehensive and detailed complaint is actually the work product of the law firm Morrison & Foerester LLP, one of the top law firms in the US with over 1,000 lawyers.

WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?

New York’s most powerful legislators are stuck in the stone age when it comes to the way they view mixed martial arts. It’s disturbing that civilized and educated people like these can’t embrace MMA and allow it to be featured in such a prominent and highly populated state. It’s even more troubling that the sport’s most outspoken and powerful New York critics refuse to recognize the leaps and bounds made in MMA’s mainstream acceptance, overall safety and growing popularity over the years since 1997. If politicians can’t even hash out how to handle a simple sport, how can we rely on these folks to fix our troubled economy? How will they be able to determine the best way to deal with the dwindling accounts that provide for our most sacred social programs like Medicare and Social Security?  If the legislature in New York can’t see the end game and admit they are wrong about the sport they’ve vilified out of pure spite, what’s to stop them from acting out of the same type of spite and unmotivated animosity when it comes to other crucial issues?

This case is bound to get interesting in the weeks and months to come. The entire litigation is certainly worth a full read if you have the time. CLICK HERE TO EXAMINE THE FULL COMPLAINT.

[/mpinpage]

Comments