Ward

Ward v. Goossen

Good Law
71 F. Supp. 3d 1010·2014 WL 5280949·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147569
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 15, 2014Case No. 14-cv-03510-TEHCalifornia3,218 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Henderson, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Professional boxer Andre Ward (“Plaintiff’) has brought a civil suit against Dan Goossen, 1 Ward’s former promoter, and *1012 Goossen Tutor Promotions, LLC (“Defendants”). Compl. (Docket No. 1). Plaintiff seeks damages resulting from Defendants’ alleged violation of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, which, in relevant part, requires promoters to make certain financial disclosures to their boxers. Plaintiff also seeks an accounting of profits derived from several boxing matches. In the instant motion, Defendants ask the Court to compel the arbitration of Plaintiffs claims. August 29, 2014 Mot. (Docket No. 26). On September 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed his opposition (Docket No. 30), and the Court subsequently heard oral argument. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions, the Court now DENIES Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff and' Defendants have been involved in a protracted dispute over Defendants’ work promoting Plaintiff as a professional boxer. Previously, the parties have both litigated and arbitrated the validity of their 2004 and 2011…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.