Sorry, there was an error
Sorry, there was an error
Hip Hop/Rap Forums @ RapArtists.com

Arsenal home jersey 2015 Hallman. The new suit com...

Please login or register free to be able to post.

View forum:

Arsenal home jersey 2015 Hallman. The new suit comes seven days after a lawsuit

Started by FDGFDG, 2014/12/23 09:38PM
Latest post: 2014/12/23 09:38PM, Views: 804, Posts: 1
Arsenal home jersey 2015 Hallman. The new suit comes seven days after ...
#1   2014/12/23 09:38PM
FDGFDG
On Tuesday, another lawsuit by ex-UFC fighters was filed against Zuffa, parent company of the UFC. The plaintiffs for the new suit are former UFC fighters Javier Vazquez and Dennis Arsenal home jersey 2015 Hallman. The new suit comes seven days after a lawsuit was filed against Zuffa by former UFC fighters Jon Fitch and Nate Quarry and current UFC fighter Cung Le.

The two lawsuits are nearly identical. The same lawyers are representing the plaintiffs in both suits. Both suits were filed by Joseph Saveri Law Firm of San Francisco in the Court for the Northern District of California. Robert Maysey, a long-time advocate for fighters’ rights in mixed martial arts, is also listed as co-counsel for the plaintiffs in both suits.

Vazquez, 37, fought five fights in the WEC and one in the UFC from 2009 to 2011. His last MMA bout was a unanimous decision win over Joe Stevenson in June 2011. It [url= http://www.portugalhomejersey.com/bayern-munich-jersey-71_75.html]Bayern Munich Robben jersey [/url] was Vazquez’s only UFC bout. He officially retired from MMA in January 2013.

Hallman, 39, began fighting in MMA in 1996 and had multiple runs with the UFC, his last UFC fight a first-round submission win over John Makdessi in December 2011. Originally scheduled at lightweight, the bout was fought at catchweight when Hallman missed weight. He was released by the UFC after Manc... City jersey 2015 failing to make weight Chelsea home jersey 2015 for a second consecutive time for a proposed fight against Thiago Tavares in October 2012 that ended up canceled. Hallman was recently defeated by Fitch in WSOF this past July.

The story originally broke Wednesday by John S. Nash and Brent Brookhouse of Bloody Elbow. “Bloody Elbow has learned that the five fighters named as plaintiffs on the complaint are not the only fighters involved in the suit,” wrote Nash and Brookhouse. “We are aware of at least six other fighters that were considered to be included amongst the plaintiffs but for whatever reasons were left off.”

Wrestling Observer.com has acquired a copy of the second suit filed by Hallman and Vazquez. The text for both suits is nearly identical. Both suits are antitrust class action complaints. The arguments for both suits are the same, with slight alterations based on the identities of the plaintiffs.

In the Cung Le suit, the plaintiffs argue that Zuffa has a monopoly in the relevant output market and a monopsony in the relevant input market. The output market refers to the promotion of mixed martial arts events featuring elite professional fighters. The suit argues that the as part of an anticompetitive scheme to dominate the marketplace, the UFC has “acquired, driven out of business, foreclosed the entry of, and/or substantially impaired the competitiveness of multiple actual and potential MMA promotion rivals.”

The input market, on the other hand, refers to the market for hiring fighters to compete in the UFC. The Cung Le suit claims that UFC has a monopsony over the supply of elite professional mixed martial artists and that they use that monopsony to artificially suppress the compensation of UFC fighters.

"Monopsony is the mirror reflection of monopoly except that in a monopsonistic market there exists only one buyer,” wrote Facey and Assaf in their text, Competition and Antitrust Laws.

In the Cung Le suit, Fitch and Le are listed as “bout class plaintiffs”. They represent both themselves and mixed martial artists who have fought in UFC bouts during the class period, defined as December 16th, 2010, until now. Quarry, on the other hand, is listed as an “identity class plaintiff” which the suit claims is a class fighters “whose identities were exploited or expropriated for use by the UFC, including in UFC Licensed Merchandise and/or UFC Promotional Materials.”

The Hallman and Vazquez lawsuit also claims that the UFC has a monopoly in the relevant output market and a monopsony in the relevant input market. In this suit, however, both Hallman and Vazquez are listed a members of both the bout class and identity class of fighters.

Both suits are seeking the same redress, including treble damages (meaning triple the amount of damages actually sustained), and “equitable relief as is necessary to correct for the anticompetitive market effects caused by the unlawful conduct of the Defendant.


Please login or register free to be able to post.

« Go back to topic list

  • Links allowed: yes
  • Allow HTML: no
  • Allow BB code yes
  • Allow youTube.com: yes
  • Allow code: yes
  • Links visible: no
  • Quick reply: yes
  • Post preview: yes