Zuffa v. Couture Preliminary Injunction Ruling Expected Today

Months of verbal sparring between Zuffa and Randy Couture (Pictures) should have some resolution late Thursday afternoon.

In front of Judge Jennifer Togliatti, in Nevada District Court, Zuffa is seeking a preliminary injunction preventing 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." This includes, but is not limited to, the use of Couture's likeness by the IFL and his participation in this Friday's IFL event in Las Vegas.

Couture's likeness was posted on the IFL Web site for a brief period, allegedly between one and three days, as a coach of the Xtreme Couture team. According to affidavits in the case, the IFL's Director of Web Marketing and Technology posted the image on his on volition, without Couture's permission, on the assumption that Couture would be coaching the Xtreme Couture team.

Upon learning that his likeness was being used, Couture's staff immediately contacted the IFL and asked that it be removed, according to Couture's affidavit.

It is believed that the injunction might also prevent Couture from cornering his fighters at non-UFC events. Couture argues that his employment agreement permitted the activity under section 1.2 of the agreement. That provision stated that Couture was allowed to establish Xtreme Couture MMA schools so long as he was not personally involved with a rival promoter.

It is the meaning of that phrase, "involved with any other promoter," that must be determined by the court.

The fact that he has been allowed to corner fighters since at least March 2007 without protest is cited by Couture as evidence of the permissiveness of the conduct. Because it is only now, after Couture's resignation, that the company has objected, "raises an inference that [Zuffa's] motion is being brought for an improper punitive purpose."

Couture's opposition to the temporary injunction specifically cited two IFL events, on November 3 and December 29, 2007, on which Couture coached and cornered Xtreme Couture fighters without objection from the UFC.

Zuffa's motion for preliminary injunction also makes mention of the company's promotional agreement with Couture. That agreement is still not at issue in the current proceedings in Las Vegas, however, it has been challenged in court by HDNet Fights in Texas District Court.

The motion states that Couture "is obligated to fight two more bouts" under the terms of the promotional agreement. A footnote later in the filing notes that the agreement is confidential, however, Zuffa will make it available to the court in camera if it so desires.

Couture's duties under the employment agreement included interaction with athletic commissions and government representatives and television interviewing and commentating.

The parties are also scheduled to appear in court on March 25 for a hearing on Couture's motion to dismiss three claims in the case. The motion asks the court to dismiss Zuffa's claims for conspiracy, injurious falsehood and trade disparagement, and interference with contractual rights.

According to the motion, the conspiracy and interference claims must be dismissed because of the plaintiff's failure to identify a second party. By law Couture cannot conspire with himself nor interfere with his own contract. The failure of the plaintiff to identify to whom such statements were made compels dismissal of the injurious falsehood and trade disparagement claim according to the filing.

Adam Swift is the Editor of MMAPayout.com and a regular contributor to Sherdog.com.