Gerald F. Alessi v. Floyd Mayweather

Citation: Not availableDocket: 17-56366

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; November 20, 2019; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The document details a series of appeals arising from litigation related to the high-profile boxing match between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr. The case is identified as "In re Pacquiao-Mayweather Boxing Match Pay-Per-View Litigation," with multiple plaintiffs, including Gerald F. Alessi, Victor Bobadilla, and others, who are appealing against various defendants including Floyd Mayweather Jr., Mayweather Promotions, LLC, Emmanuel Pacquiao, Top Rank, Inc., and Home Box Office, Inc. The appeals are assigned different case numbers, indicating multiple filings related to the same overarching litigation. The plaintiffs are seeking to represent themselves and others similarly situated, alleging various claims against the defendants. The document specifies the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, highlighting the complexity and multiple facets of the litigation involving numerous parties and claims.

Multiple appellants, including Victor Bobadilla, Lisette Nazario, Jason Schofield, and others, have lodged appeals against various defendants, including Top Rank, Inc., Mayweather Promotions, LLC, Floyd Mayweather Jr., and Emmanuel Pacquiao, among others. These cases are consolidated under the title "In Re Pacquiao-Mayweather Boxing Litigation," with multiple case numbers assigned. The appeals stem from decisions made by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, presided over by Judge R. Gary Klausner, with oral arguments submitted on March 7, 2019, and the opinion filed on November 21, 2019. The panel of judges includes Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas and Circuit Judges Ronald Lee Gilman and Jacqueline H. Nguyen. Judge Nguyen authored the opinion. Each appellant represents themselves and others similarly situated, indicating a class action element in the litigation.

The panel upheld the district court's dismissal of class action lawsuits from spectators against the boxers and promoters of the May 2, 2015, Mayweather-Pacquiao fight. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants failed to disclose a pre-existing injury of boxer Manny Pacquiao, which influenced their decision to purchase tickets. However, the panel concluded that the plaintiffs did not experience a legally recognizable injury, as they received the full-length boxing match they paid for between two renowned fighters. The summary notes that it was prepared for reader convenience and does not form part of the court’s opinion.

Judge Nguyen highlights the unpredictability of competitive sports, illustrated by historical boxing matches. The piece centers around the May 2, 2015, fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr., promoted as the "Fight of the Century." Although Mayweather won by unanimous decision, controversy arose when Pacquiao disclosed he had injured his shoulder in training, leading multiple plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits claiming they would not have purchased tickets had they known about the injury. The district court dismissed these complaints, asserting that the plaintiffs did not experience a legal injury since they received what they paid for. 

Prior to the fight, both boxers were considered top pound-for-pound fighters, with promotional efforts depicting the event as historic. Pacquiao sustained a rotator cuff injury a month before the match but chose to proceed after consulting with doctors. Despite the injury, his trainer and promoter expressed confidence in his condition, making optimistic public statements about his readiness. Tickets sold out rapidly, with prices soaring into the thousands, and pay-per-view revenues broke records. The summary concludes with the court affirming the dismissal of the lawsuits.

On May 1, 2015, one day before the fight, Pacquiao and his advisor completed a pre-fight medical questionnaire, falsely claiming he had no injuries. Hours before the fight, a Top Rank employee informed the NSAC of Pacquiao’s shoulder injury and requested a pre-fight injection, which was denied due to the late disclosure. Despite this, NSAC physicians cleared him to fight. After twelve rounds, judges declared Mayweather the winner. Following the fight, Pacquiao and his team admitted they had known about the injury for weeks, with Pacquiao stating he was not at full capacity. On May 5, they confirmed the shoulder injury but claimed he fought under medical advice. Plaintiffs allege the defendants, including Pacquiao, Top Rank, Mayweather, and HBO, were aware of the injury and failed to disclose it, misleading the public regarding the fighters' conditions and affecting purchasing decisions for tickets and pay-per-view. Plaintiffs argue they would not have bought access had they known the fighters were not in peak condition. The case involves multiple defendants and class action complaints filed in various jurisdictions, ultimately leading to the creation of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) to centralize proceedings. The district court dismissed all complaints with prejudice on August 25, 2017.

The district court determined that the Plaintiffs did not experience a cognizable injury to a legally protected interest, as the alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to the essence of athletic competition rather than business outcomes or financial performance. Following this ruling, the Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal. Jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and dismissals for failure to state a claim are reviewed de novo, referencing McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. N.Y. State Common Ret. Fund, Inc.

Existing case law is examined to guide the court's interpretation of the rights of disappointed spectators at sporting events, revealing that most courts apply the “license approach.” This approach indicates that ticket holders possess only the right to attend and view the event, leading to no recognizable injury if the event fails to meet their expectations. Notably, cases such as Bowers v. Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile and Mayer v. Belichick illustrate this principle. In Bowers, the Seventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of a class action from Formula One race attendees seeking refunds due to a lack of competitive participation, emphasizing that the ticket merely grants entry to view an event, not the guarantee of a specific spectacle. Similarly, in Mayer, the Third Circuit dismissed claims against the New England Patriots regarding the “Spygate” scandal, asserting that the plaintiff only held a license to enter the stadium and observe the game, not a legally protected right to an untainted competition. Both cases underscore the courts' reluctance to recognize injuries based on expectations of event quality rather than the fulfillment of the basic contractual right to attend the event.

The plaintiff did not allege any injury to a legally protected right, leading to the conclusion that there was “no cognizable injury.” The plaintiff attended games of two NFL teams, distinguishing this case from instances where games were canceled or alternative sports were played. Most state courts have adopted a similar "license approach," which allows for the dismissal of claims when spectators receive what they paid for, as seen in *Castillo v. Tyson*. In that case, the court upheld the dismissal of fraud claims related to Tyson's disqualification during a fight, asserting that such disqualifications are expected risks for fight fans. The Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in *Le Mon v. National Football League* further reinforced this view, ruling that season ticket holders lacked a “right of action” to challenge a referee's missed call, as their ticket purchase only entitled them to entry and seating, not a guarantee of the game's officiating quality. The court noted public policy considerations favor limiting spectators' rights in disputes over officiating. Plaintiffs acknowledged the prevailing authority against their claims but argued they were "defrauded consumers" rather than merely “disappointed” fans, citing other cases involving season ticket holders, such as *Charpentier v. L.A. Rams Football Co.*, where misrepresentations about team relocation inflated ticket sales.

The California Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of several claims from the plaintiff but permitted the fraud claim to proceed, reasoning that season ticket holders might have refrained from purchasing tickets had they known the team would relocate and that renewal options would be unavailable. The plaintiffs referenced the case of Beder, where material facts prevented summary judgment on a fraud claim involving season ticket holders misled by false statements about a team's relocation. In contrast, the court found limited relevance in these season ticket-holder cases to the current matter, emphasizing that those claims were based on expectations regarding game locations and ticket renewals, rather than performance outcomes in sports events.

In this case, boxing fans paid to see a fight between Mayweather and Pacquiao, both cleared to compete. Despite the match not meeting pre-fight hype expectations, Pacquiao was able to fight the full twelve rounds. The court concluded that the plaintiffs received what they paid for—a full-length match—and that subjective expectations did not constitute a legally cognizable injury. The plaintiffs mischaracterized the applicability of the “license approach” to their fraud claims, as prior cases under this approach did not support the continuation of tort claims. The defendants’ statements regarding Pacquiao’s condition were deemed non-actionable puffery, further supporting the dismissal of the claims.

In Glen Holly Entm’t, Inc. v. Tektronix Inc., the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims based on vague assertions deemed mere puffery that reasonable consumers could not rely upon. The case involved a pre-fight medical questionnaire in which boxer Pacquiao responded negatively to a question about shoulder injuries; however, this questionnaire was not publicly available before the match, meaning plaintiffs could not have relied on it. The Seventh Circuit's decision in Bowers highlights that sports fans understand various factors can affect the outcome of competitions, much like unpredictable elements in Formula One racing. In boxing, unexpected events, such as injuries or referee interference, are part of the sport's nature. Plaintiffs' argument comparing their claims to consumer protection cases, where expectations are formed through public representations, was found unpersuasive. Unlike consumer goods, the outcomes of sports events are governed by well-known rules and the unpredictable nature of performance, leading to diverse fan expectations. The court noted that holding defendants liable for not disclosing every minor injury would create an unreasonable burden, as athletes often compete with injuries and fans should expect a level of unpredictability in sports competitions.

A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could significantly disrupt competitive sports, allowing opponents to exploit disclosed athlete information, thereby undermining fair play. The liability theory raises practical issues regarding what athletes must disclose about their health, including the ambiguity of whether discomfort or non-painful injuries need reporting, and the timing of such disclosures before events. The Third Circuit's Mayer case highlights the potential for an influx of lawsuits from fans disappointed by various outcomes in sports, which could burden the judicial system and drain resources from sports organizations. The precedent established in Bowers and Castillo indicates that fans have no legal claim if they received the event they paid for, regardless of its quality. Thus, plaintiffs cannot claim refunds for disappointing performances, as they were entitled only to the opportunity to watch the event unfold, not a specific level of excitement. The court concluded that any dissatisfaction must be addressed through consumer choices rather than legal action, affirming the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaints.