Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Pacquiao Lawsuit Against Mayweather, Golden Boy et al. Survives Motion to Dismiss

As I predicted, on March 18, 2011, Judge Larry Hicks of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada entered an Order Denying Defendants' motions to dismiss Pacquiao's defamation claim in his action against Floyd Mayweather Jr., Floyd Mayweather Sr., Roger Mayweather, Mayweather Promotions, LLC, Richard Schaefer, and Oscar De La Hoya.


In his decision, Judge Hicks first outlined the standard on a motion to dismiss and then held that Pacquiao had sufficiently stated a cause of action for defamation based upon the alleged statements at issue and had sufficiently alleged actual malice (he is a public figure).

With respect to the statements at issue, the Court held as follows:
The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter, as well as the arguments made by counsel at the March 3, 2011 motion hearing, and finds that defendants’ alleged statements are actionable defamatory statements because they falsely assert an objective fact; namely, that Pacquiao was using and had used PEDs. First, the court finds that a reasonable listener would understand and interpret the moving defendants’ statements to imply that Pacquiao has used and is using PEDs. See e.g., Doc. #13, ¶36 (defendant de la Hoya’s statement comparing Pacquiao’s punches as similar to other fighters who have taken PEDs); Doc. #13, ¶30 (defendant Mayweather, Jr.’s statement that Pacquiao’s physical development is a result of the Phillippines [sic] having access to the best performance enhancing drugs). Further, the court finds that the alleged statements are presupposed facts not available to a reasonable listener but that a reasonable listener would assume implied actual knowledge of the statement’s truth. See e.g., Doc. #13, ¶29 (defendant Schaefer’s statement that he “was sure” that Pacquiao uses PEDs); Doc. #13, ¶42 (defendant Mayweather, Jr.’s statement that Pacquiao has “the power pellets, yo, the steroid juice.”). “Any statement which presupposes defamatory facts unknown to the interpreter is defamatory.” Gordon, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 51863, *11. Therefore, taking all of the allegations in the amended complaint as true, the court finds Pacquiao has sufficiently alleged a cause of action for defamation per se against moving defendants.
Next the Court held that Pacquiao had sufficiently alleged actual malice, i.e “knowledge of the falsity of a statement or a reckless disregard for its truth.”

As you can see from my earlier posts, I do not necessarily agree that all of the statements were actionable, i.e. I believed certain statements were more likely protected opinion. That said, I agree with the Court that some of the statements, including the two quoted above, were actionable.

Fight Lawyer