Remember when Nick Diaz‘s legal team filed suit last week, claiming that the Nevada State Athletic Commission had acted improperly in handling his failed drug test and ensuing proceedings, and that they now no longer have jurisdiction over their client’s case? Well, the state of Nevada disagrees. After Diaz’s lawyer Ross C. Goodman referenced a “summary suspension” in their paperwork last week, Nevada’s Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto wrote Goodman to explain that, in legal terms, he doesn’t know what he’s talking ’bout. MMA Fighting has the report:
“‘No Notice of Summary Suspension was ever served on your client,’ Masto wrote. ‘In this matter, Mr. Diaz was properly served with a Notice of Hearing on Temporary Suspension and he failed to appear at the hearing. The Commission temporarily suspended Mr. Diaz’s license at the hearing. Neither Mr. Diaz nor you objected in any manner to the temporary suspension.’“
Remember when Nick Diaz‘s legal team filed suit last week, claiming that the Nevada State Athletic Commission had acted improperly in handling his failed drug test and ensuing proceedings, and that they now no longer have jurisdiction over their client’s case? Well, the state of Nevada disagrees. After Diaz’s lawyer Ross C. Goodman referenced a “summary suspension” in their paperwork last week, Nevada’s Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto wrote Goodman to explain that, in legal terms, he doesn’t know what he’s talking ’bout. MMA Fighting has the report:
“‘No Notice of Summary Suspension was ever served on your client,’ Masto wrote. ‘In this matter, Mr. Diaz was properly served with a Notice of Hearing on Temporary Suspension and he failed to appear at the hearing. The Commission temporarily suspended Mr. Diaz’s license at the hearing. Neither Mr. Diaz nor you objected in any manner to the temporary suspension.’”
“The letter effectively indicates that because Diaz was not given a ‘summary suspension,’ his case does not fall under Nevada code NRS 233B.127, which requires a hearing within 45 days. A separate code, NRS 467.117, indicates that the commission can ‘continue the suspension until it makes a final determination of any disciplinary action to be taken against the licensee or holder of the permit’.”
The letter also indicates that the NSAC delay in scheduling Diaz’s hearing was partially his fault, caused while waiting for him to produce his medical marijuana card.
“I’ve waited for more than a month for the card,” Masto wrote.
So, Diaz’s team is saying that Nevada lost their chance at deciding the fighter’s fate because they have not held a hearing within 45 days, in violation of Nevada code NRS 233B.127, which dictates what happens under summary suspension. But that’s not even an applicable argument, according to the Nevada Attorney General. In summation, Diaz is saying to the NSAC “you can’t tell me what to do!”, and the state of Nevada is saying, “yes we can.”
Time will tell which side the circuit court that Diaz filed suit in will take. The court will hear Diaz’s motion for an injunction against the NSAC’s suspension (that the NSAC says doesn’t exist), on May 14th.
UFC welterweight contender Nick Diaz has sued the Nevada State Athletic Commission for allegedly violating his right to due process and for alleged violations of statutory law. Diaz’s suit petitions the court to stay the summary suspension given to Diaz by the NSAC and to prohibit the NSAC from going forward with additional disciplinary proceedings.
And, oh yeah, Diaz says he is ready to fight “immediately,” should the court rule in his favor, in a sworn affidavit released by his attorney. “On February 7th, 2012, the UFC’s President publicly announced that Mr. Condit agreed to an immediate rematch against me. It is my understanding that the winner of that rematch will be offered a contest against Georges St-Pierre, the current UFC welterweight champion,” Diaz said.
Top 10 beard-for-beard MMA reporter Luke Thomas has more details, many of which will fly over your head if you’re not a law student:
UFC welterweight contender Nick Diaz has sued the Nevada State Athletic Commission for allegedly violating his right to due process and for alleged violations of statutory law. Diaz’s suit petitions the court to stay the summary suspension given to Diaz by the NSAC and to prohibit the NSAC from going forward with additional disciplinary proceedings.
And, oh yeah, Diaz says he is ready to fight “immediately,” should the court rule in his favor, in a sworn affidavit released by his attorney. “On February 7th, 2012, the UFC’s President publicly announced that Mr. Condit agreed to an immediate rematch against me. It is my understanding that the winner of that rematch will be offered a contest against Georges St-Pierre, the current UFC welterweight champion,” Diaz said.
Top 10 beard-for-beard MMA reporter Luke Thomas has more details, many of which will fly over your head if you’re not a law student:
“Diaz is arguing the NSAC is in violation of two statutory codes. First, statutory code NRS 233B, requires the commission to determine the outcome through proceedings related to the order of a summary suspension within 45 days of the date of the suspension.
Diaz and his lawyers argue this term has passed without any date set for a hearing. ‘Diaz’s license has, in effect, been suspended indefinitely, says the lawsuit, ‘In the absence of any adverse findings having been made against him by the NSAC.’
‘Under NRS 233B.127, which applies to all revocations, suspensions, annulments and withdrawals of licenses (including licenses issued by the NSAC), [p]roceedings relating to the order of summary suspension must be instituted and determined within 45 days after the date of the [suspension] unless the agency and the licensee mutually agree in writing to a longer period.’
The lawsuit claims Diaz and his lawyers made repeated attempts to reach the NSAC to obtain a formal hearing to finally adjudicate the NSAC’s complaint without any response from Executive Director of the NSAC Keith Kizer.
Diaz’s complaint also cites breach of statute NRS 467.117, which requires that a ‘temporary suspension may be made only where the action is necessary to protect the public welfare’. In other words, Diaz’s temporary suspension is unlawful because no basis has been established that demonstrates suspending Diaz was done as a matter of preserving public health.
Citing the alleged violation of these two statutes by the NSAC, Diaz’s complaint asks the court to enjoin NSAC from proceeding with any further punitive proceedings because ‘the NSAC has lost statutory jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint’.”
Diaz’ motion for injunction against the NSAC is scheduled to be heard by the court on May 14th. This case might prove to be fascinating for what it is avoiding.
Diaz is attempting to circumvent the NSAC altogether by claiming that they no longer have jurisdiction in his career, and going straight to the courts and calling into question the disciplinary process of the world’s most influential athletic commission. Diaz is also attempting to avoid the reason for his suspension by the NSAC, a post-fight drug test in which he tested positive for marijuana metabolites.
Diaz isn’t asking the courts to render judgement on the test, but rather, he appears to be attempting to get out of his suspension on the technicality that the NSAC made mistakes in their process of handling his case. Diaz’ entire complaint is available here and the motion for preliminary injunction, including his sworn affidavit can be read here.
What do you say, nation? Is Nick violating Stockton rules by doing the procedural version of point-fighting, or is he holding up the 209 proper by giving the NSAC the middle finger?
And when did Diaz get so good at the public relations game? Just the other day he had his brother Nate saying that he wasn’t interested in fighting, but now he’s filed legal papers saying he is ready to fight again immediately. That’s some high-level misdirection and strategic demurring. Or something.
On Saturday, we published a post about the UFC’s sponsorship of Jon Jones for his upcoming fight against Rashad Evans, which included a satirical caption about UFC president Dana White betting money on the fight. The caption was intended to be a joke, and we were confident that it would interpreted that way by our readers. Earlier today, we received a press release announcing that the UFC and Dana White are demanding a retraction “regarding certain false and defamatory statements attributed to UFC® President, Dana White.” As the release stated:
“The claim that Mr. White would financially wager on the outcome of a UFC® event is outrageous in the extreme. Indeed, in the verified complaint we are presently preparing for Mr. White’s signature upon his return from Abu Dhabi, Mr. White expressly states under oath that at no time in the history of his association with the UFC® has he ever financially wagered on the outcome of a UFC® event.”
CagePotato doesn’t contest any part of this request; we hereby retract the line in question, which has since been removed from our site. Again, the caption wasn’t published with any malicious intent whatsoever, but we understand that Dana White’s reputation would be harmed if our readers actually believed that he bets on the UFC’s matches. Once again, Dana White does not bet on his own fights, and he never has. We apologize for any misunderstanding the caption may have caused.
On Saturday, we published a post about the UFC’s sponsorship of Jon Jones for his upcoming fight against Rashad Evans, which included a satirical caption about UFC president Dana White betting money on the fight. The caption was intended to be a joke, and we were confident that it would interpreted that way by our readers. Earlier today, we received a press release announcing that the UFC and Dana White are demanding a retraction “regarding certain false and defamatory statements attributed to UFC® President, Dana White.” As the release stated:
“The claim that Mr. White would financially wager on the outcome of a UFC® event is outrageous in the extreme. Indeed, in the verified complaint we are presently preparing for Mr. White’s signature upon his return from Abu Dhabi, Mr. White expressly states under oath that at no time in the history of his association with the UFC® has he ever financially wagered on the outcome of a UFC® event.”
CagePotato doesn’t contest any part of this request; we hereby retract the line in question, which has since been removed from our site. Again, the caption wasn’t published with any malicious intent whatsoever, but we understand that Dana White’s reputation would be harmed if our readers actually believed that he bets on the UFC’s matches. Once again, Dana White does not bet on his own fights, and he never has. We apologize for any misunderstanding the caption may have caused.
(To the victor go the spoils. / Photoshop via MRuss)
Cage Potato is pleased to announce that a troubling legal matter has been settled in our favor. After being named as a defendant in a June 2009 defamation lawsuit filed by MMA trainer Juanito Ibarra, we’ve finally been removed from the frivolous suit, and Cage Potato’s parent company has been awarded $61,075 in attorney fees and associated costs.
The lawsuit stemmed from a September 2008 PunchDrunkGamer.com interview with Tito Ortiz, in which Ortiz claimed that Ibarra had overcharged Quinton Jackson for his training camps, which led to Jackson severing professional ties with Ibarra. Like many other sites, Cage Potato quoted the interview in a blog post, and gave our own thoughts on the matter. Nine months later, Ibarra responded by filing suit against CagePotato.com — as well as Ortiz, Jackson, and over 20 web sites and writers — claiming that we damaged his reputation by publishing false information.
(To the victor go the spoils. / Photoshop via MRuss)
Cage Potato is pleased to announce that a troubling legal matter has been settled in our favor. After being named as a defendant in a June 2009 defamation lawsuit filed by MMA trainer Juanito Ibarra, we’ve finally been removed from the frivolous suit, and Cage Potato’s parent company has been awarded $61,075 in attorney fees and associated costs.
The lawsuit stemmed from a September 2008 PunchDrunkGamer.com interview with Tito Ortiz, in which Ortiz claimed that Ibarra had overcharged Quinton Jackson for his training camps, which led to Jackson severing professional ties with Ibarra. Like many other sites, Cage Potato quoted the interview in a blog post, and gave our own thoughts on the matter. Nine months later, Ibarra responded by filing suit against CagePotato.com — as well as Ortiz, Jackson, and over 20 web sites and writers — claiming that we damaged his reputation by publishing false information.
Fortunately, Ibarra wasn’t able to prove his claims in court. In September, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Zaven Sinanian granted a motion by our lawyers to dismiss CagePotato.com from the lawsuit. Our lawyers then filed a counter-suit to recoup attorney fees and other court costs, which was successful. On October 27th, a Los Angeles judge awarded Cage Potato’s parent company a judgment of $61,075.
Ortiz and Jackson are the only remaining defendants in Ibarra’s lawsuit; all of the other media outlets named in the suit have reportedly either settled with Ibarra or have been removed as defendants.
Because Ibarra never offered proof that Ortiz’s statements were false, and because CagePotato.com didn’t re-publish Ortiz’s quotes out of malice towards Ibarra, we always felt that the lawsuit was meritless and motivated by profit — a shakedown, essentially. We applaud the Los Angeles County court system for defending our right to report the news.
Perhaps we were all a little quick to bag on Josh Koscheck for taking a legal dump on “Trash Talkin’ Kids“, Stephan Bonnar’s new irreverent line of MMA shirts. True, he does have a track record of being kind of a dick, but this wouldn’t be the first time that we’ve jumped to conclusions about the UFC Welterweight only to back track a little. Lesson learned. From now on, we’ll reserve judgment until all of the facts are in and give Kos the benefit of the doubt. Nah, not really, but here’s the latest on this story.
Koscheck sat down with the folks at BleacherReport.com to give his side of the tale. According to Kos, his problem with the shirt in question has nothing to do with being the butt of a joke, but rather stems from a preexisting exclusive contract.
Perhaps we were all a little quick to bag on Josh Koscheck for taking a legal dump on “Trash Talkin’ Kids“, Stephan Bonnar’s new irreverent line of MMA shirts. True, he does have a track record of being kind of a dick, but this wouldn’t be the first time that we’ve jumped to conclusions about the UFC Welterweight only to back track a little. Lesson learned. From now on, we’ll reserve judgment until all of the facts are in and give Kos the benefit of the doubt. Nah, not really, but here’s the latest on this story.
Koscheck sat down with the folks at BleacherReport.com to give his side of the tale. According to Kos, his problem with the shirt in question has nothing to do with being the butt of a joke, but rather stems from a preexisting exclusive contract.
“This situation is very black and white,” (Koscheck who is 14-4 in the UFC said). There’s a side of right and a side of wrong and I’m on the side of right. Stephan Bonnar and his company are on the side of wrong. I have an exclusive deal that is a conflict to use my image, to use my likeness, and to use my name.”
“I spoke to Stephan Bonnar about a year ago and I’ve had my existing contract for about two years now and I spoke to him about a year ago at AKA (American Kickboxing Academy), regarding this situation and he was understanding of the fact that there is an existing agreement with a prior apparel company with myself.”
“He spoke with myself and my manager Bob Cook at AKA when he was filming something for SpikeTV, he was in agreement and in an understanding that they would stop producing and making the shirt. Because I was about to get sued from my preexisting exclusive deal that I’ve had signed for two-years.”
“So, he was putting me in breach of this contract by producing this shirt. Now, with that being said, he was fine with that and was fine with everything after meeting at AKA and he continued to produce the shirt.”
“He basically gave me no other choice, but to go after him legally because of the fact that I’m about to be sued from another company because of Stephan Bonnar and his antics.”
Assuming that all of this information is accurate, and we’ll take it at face value here, the NGAUGE shirt basically forced Kos into a “sue or be sued” scenario, and rather than lose out on a long-term sponsorship deal so Bonnar can sell some t-shirts, he filed suit. Seems fair enough. The whole situation raises some legal questions that I don’t have the answers to: Is NGUAGE protected by parody or satire laws? Can Koscheck be sued by his sponsor for the unauthorized actions of a third party? Though these cases may never actually make it to trial, Koscheck and Bonnar may take the law into their own hands rather than take it to court.
Bonnar stated that he’s willing to cut weight to face Koscheck in the cage. And Koscheck? Yeah, he’s down too:
“Now, Stephan Bonnar is calling me out and it’s absurd, that p***y really needs to think about who he’s calling out because when he becomes a B level fighter, then I’ll take him serious. But right now, he’s not even a B level fighter so I’m not taking him serious.”
“If he does want to fight me and run his mouth and continue to run his mouth personally, then we can settle this. I’ll fight him at 185 for the fans, because I know there’s a lot of people out there right now that this is a big deal and I’ll make that my comeback fight hopefully in October.”
“All day long, that’d be a nice, easy comeback fight. I’d like to have a nice warmup fight and Stephan Bonnar would be that fight.”
Now that’s some quality trash talkin’, kid! Joe Silva, make it rain.
Due to his unauthorized depiction in the “Trash Talkin’ Kids” t-shirt line, UFC star Josh Koscheck is suing NGAUGE, the MMA artwork and apparel company co-founded by Stephan Bonnar. NGAUGE was officially served with notice of the lawsuit yesterday morning.
Though a source at NGAUGE told us that reaction from the other fighters depicted in the shirt series (including Georges St. Pierre and Brock Lesnar) has been uniformly positive, Koscheck apparently didn’t see the humor in being associated with a brand of children’s overalls. Which is too bad, because that shit is kind of hilarious.
Due to his unauthorized depiction in the “Trash Talkin’ Kids” t-shirt line, UFC star Josh Koscheck is suing NGAUGE, the MMA artwork and apparel company co-founded by Stephan Bonnar. NGAUGE was officially served with notice of the lawsuit yesterday morning.
Though a source at NGAUGE told us that reaction from the other fighters depicted in the shirt series (including Georges St. Pierre and Brock Lesnar) has been uniformly positive, Koscheck apparently didn’t see the humor in being associated with a brand of children’s overalls. Which is too bad, because that shit is kind of hilarious.
In an odd side-note to the story, Koshcheck’s legal representation in the case will be Christian Wellisch, a retired heavyweight fighter who you might remember as Shane Carwin’s first knockout victim in the UFC, back in May 2008. Following that fight, Wellisch was briefly fired during the mass-bloodletting over AKA’s refusal to sign away their likenesses for UFC Undisputed, then fired for real when he dropped a split-decision to Jake O’Brien in his next outing. These days, he runs a law practice near San Jose.
Unsurprisingly, Koscheck’s lawsuit has raised the ire of Stephan Bonnar himself, who now lists Koscheck as the person he’d like to fight most in the UFC. As he explained in an interview published yesterday on FiveKnuckles:
“He actually inspired the [Trash Talkin’ Kids] idea, he [talked] so much shit in the Daley fight and after the fight…I thought it was the funniest thing, like he is just a trash talking kid at heart….He got wind of it and he didn’t like it and I tried to explain it to him firsthand. ‘Like, look we’re doing them for all the fighters. It’s kind of a joke, just cartoon versions of the fighters.’…Anyway, so he didn’t like it. Turns out we won’t be able to sell his but we will be able to sell the other ones. I didn’t think his was gonna sell too much anyway. We’re getting hit up [by] his lawyers at the moment, it’s been a pain in the ass…I would drop a lot of weight to fight him.”
