Preliminary Injunction Ruling Delayed in Couture Case
LAS VEGAS, Feb. 26 -- Lawyers for Zuffa LLC, parent company of the
UFC, had hoped to come away with a preliminary injunction Tuesday
enjoining both Randy
Couture (Pictures) and his Xtreme Couture brand from
lending their stature to the UFC's rivals.
However, after hearing nearly two hours of arguments, Judge Jennifer Togliatti delayed her ruling to allow Couture's legal team to secure an affidavit from the International Fight League regarding the promotion's intentions should the Xtreme Couture moniker be barred from use at the IFL's Feb. 29 show in Las Vegas.
The parties will be back in court Thursday at 4:30 p.m. for a limited comment period narrowly focused on the IFL affidavit. Togliatti is then expected to issue her ruling.
Zuffa is hoping the court will stop Couture from "engaging in any promotion or production of any events or programming related to unarmed combat during the one-year restricted period in his employment agreement."
The opening shots in the highest profile divorce in the sport's short existence were fired with the two most recognizable players in the blood feud absent. Neither Couture nor UFC President Dana White attended the hearing, but UFC owner Lorenzo Fertitta and Zuffa Chief Operating Officer Kirk Hendrick were in attendance along with Zuffa General Counsel Lawrence Epstein.
Donald J. Campbell, lead attorney for Zuffa, whittled the argument down to the barest of bones: "[Couture] is involved with the IFL, and we want it stopped."
Couture's counsel, Stephen Peek, attempted to draw a distinction between Randy Couture (Pictures) the individual and the Xtreme Couture gym.
"The reason we point it out, Xtreme Couture being a separate entity, is because Xtreme Couture was excluded from the employment agreement," Peek said. "If they wanted Xtreme Couture to do more or be a party to the contract, then they should have included it. But instead, what they did was excluded Xtreme Couture."
It was a continuation of the tack advanced in the opposition's filing to the preliminary injunction.
"Xtreme Couture is a non-party to the employment agreement," the defense wrote in the filing. "Although the restrictive covenant contains restrictions (though very broad, unreasonable and for which Plaintiff can demonstrate no protectable interest in the enforcement of the same), the restrictions do not apply to Xtreme Couture, which is a separate legal entity from Mr. Couture."
Said Peek at the hearing: "There is no reason for the court to intervene. The conduct is not promoting. The conduct is not conducting a business related to unarmed combat other than Xtreme Couture, which was excluded from the employment agreement."
Mr. Campbell retorted that Couture was associating the name Xtreme Couture with a team in the IFL, thereby lending his iconic stature in mixed martial arts to the IFL and in doing so violating his non-compete agreement.
"It is absolutely promoting," Campbell remarked. "It is promoting a new formula in the IFL, a competing league to the UFC."
Continuing his attack on the validity of Peek's arguments, Campbell launched into a lengthy summary of Zuffa's position on the breadth of the restrictive clause that had been described as a "catch-all" by the defense.
"The words ‘involved with any other promoter' are broad for a reason," stated Zuffa's lead attorney. "Because we don't want him involved with any other promoter. We pay him hundreds of thousands of dollars not to be involved with any other promoter. That was the consideration for the contract and the simple fact of the matter is that someone has whispered in his ear that maybe he can make more money doing something somewhere else, doing something he shouldn't be doing under this contract. And he has decided, for whatever reasons, be they avarice or whatever, that he is going to do them, and in the course of doing so, sully the good name of the individuals that made him a multi-millionaire 10 times over."
Judge Togliatti raised a number of concerns throughout the proceedings, including Xtreme Couture not being named in the suit and thus creating due process questions. She also questioned the foggy nature of the relationship between the myriad business entities comprising Xtreme Couture and its associated companies.
The biggest question came when Peek mentioned that the pending IFL event might actually be in jeopardy should a ruling come down in favor of Zuffa. This is the point that seemingly delayed the ruling until an affidavit could be obtained from the IFL answering that question.
It seems farfetched that a show would be shut down due to a team name being prohibited, especially after the months of planning and large sums of money that go into creating a promotion of the IFL's size.
Campbell was downright indignant at the proposition.
"The suggestion that somehow these fights won't go on is nonsense, absolute nonsense," he said. "They can call the team whatever they want. They simply can't connect it to Mr. Couture."
Despite the fact that a ruling will not be handed down before Thursday, it was clear from the court's statements that if an injunction were granted, it would only pertain to the Feb. 29 IFL show and would not run the length of the non-compete clause of Couture's employment contract.
Judge Togliatti also gave insight into her thought process and may have tipped her hand on which way she was leaning.
"I will tell you," she said, "that I see a difference between being in a corner with a patch on somebody's sleeve and having ‘Team Couture' and you're there in the corner in the new league. I do see a difference."
Adam Swift contributed to this report
However, after hearing nearly two hours of arguments, Judge Jennifer Togliatti delayed her ruling to allow Couture's legal team to secure an affidavit from the International Fight League regarding the promotion's intentions should the Xtreme Couture moniker be barred from use at the IFL's Feb. 29 show in Las Vegas.
The parties will be back in court Thursday at 4:30 p.m. for a limited comment period narrowly focused on the IFL affidavit. Togliatti is then expected to issue her ruling.
Zuffa is hoping the court will stop Couture from "engaging in any promotion or production of any events or programming related to unarmed combat during the one-year restricted period in his employment agreement."
The opening shots in the highest profile divorce in the sport's short existence were fired with the two most recognizable players in the blood feud absent. Neither Couture nor UFC President Dana White attended the hearing, but UFC owner Lorenzo Fertitta and Zuffa Chief Operating Officer Kirk Hendrick were in attendance along with Zuffa General Counsel Lawrence Epstein.
Donald J. Campbell, lead attorney for Zuffa, whittled the argument down to the barest of bones: "[Couture] is involved with the IFL, and we want it stopped."
Couture's counsel, Stephen Peek, attempted to draw a distinction between Randy Couture (Pictures) the individual and the Xtreme Couture gym.
"The reason we point it out, Xtreme Couture being a separate entity, is because Xtreme Couture was excluded from the employment agreement," Peek said. "If they wanted Xtreme Couture to do more or be a party to the contract, then they should have included it. But instead, what they did was excluded Xtreme Couture."
It was a continuation of the tack advanced in the opposition's filing to the preliminary injunction.
"Xtreme Couture is a non-party to the employment agreement," the defense wrote in the filing. "Although the restrictive covenant contains restrictions (though very broad, unreasonable and for which Plaintiff can demonstrate no protectable interest in the enforcement of the same), the restrictions do not apply to Xtreme Couture, which is a separate legal entity from Mr. Couture."
Said Peek at the hearing: "There is no reason for the court to intervene. The conduct is not promoting. The conduct is not conducting a business related to unarmed combat other than Xtreme Couture, which was excluded from the employment agreement."
Mr. Campbell retorted that Couture was associating the name Xtreme Couture with a team in the IFL, thereby lending his iconic stature in mixed martial arts to the IFL and in doing so violating his non-compete agreement.
"It is absolutely promoting," Campbell remarked. "It is promoting a new formula in the IFL, a competing league to the UFC."
Continuing his attack on the validity of Peek's arguments, Campbell launched into a lengthy summary of Zuffa's position on the breadth of the restrictive clause that had been described as a "catch-all" by the defense.
"The words ‘involved with any other promoter' are broad for a reason," stated Zuffa's lead attorney. "Because we don't want him involved with any other promoter. We pay him hundreds of thousands of dollars not to be involved with any other promoter. That was the consideration for the contract and the simple fact of the matter is that someone has whispered in his ear that maybe he can make more money doing something somewhere else, doing something he shouldn't be doing under this contract. And he has decided, for whatever reasons, be they avarice or whatever, that he is going to do them, and in the course of doing so, sully the good name of the individuals that made him a multi-millionaire 10 times over."
Judge Togliatti raised a number of concerns throughout the proceedings, including Xtreme Couture not being named in the suit and thus creating due process questions. She also questioned the foggy nature of the relationship between the myriad business entities comprising Xtreme Couture and its associated companies.
The biggest question came when Peek mentioned that the pending IFL event might actually be in jeopardy should a ruling come down in favor of Zuffa. This is the point that seemingly delayed the ruling until an affidavit could be obtained from the IFL answering that question.
It seems farfetched that a show would be shut down due to a team name being prohibited, especially after the months of planning and large sums of money that go into creating a promotion of the IFL's size.
Campbell was downright indignant at the proposition.
"The suggestion that somehow these fights won't go on is nonsense, absolute nonsense," he said. "They can call the team whatever they want. They simply can't connect it to Mr. Couture."
Despite the fact that a ruling will not be handed down before Thursday, it was clear from the court's statements that if an injunction were granted, it would only pertain to the Feb. 29 IFL show and would not run the length of the non-compete clause of Couture's employment contract.
Judge Togliatti also gave insight into her thought process and may have tipped her hand on which way she was leaning.
"I will tell you," she said, "that I see a difference between being in a corner with a patch on somebody's sleeve and having ‘Team Couture' and you're there in the corner in the new league. I do see a difference."
Adam Swift contributed to this report
Related Articles