World of Boxing LLC vs Don King Productions, Inc. Legal Proceedings Begin

Share Article

The pre-motion conference of Andrey Ryabinskiy vs. Don King case took place at Manhattan federal court, with attorneys representing the adversaries presenting their evidence in front of a judge.

During the pre-motion conference in relation to the Andrey Ryabinskiy vs. Don King case, Mr. Ryabinskiy’s attorneys voiced the allegations they made in court documents (Civil Action No. 14 Civ. 3791 (SAS)) that plaintiff is entitled to breach of contract compensation for King’s alleged failure to fulfill his contractual obligations in ensuring Guillermo Jones’ participation in a World Boxing Association (“WBA”) sanctioned Lebedev-Jones bout. The rematch for Cruiserweight Champion title had to be canceled after WBA pulled its sanction for the bout, after Jones’ dope testing results came back positive. In its subsequent legal clarification on the matter, WBA attorneys stated that "WBA would not, and could not sanction a championship bout when it was aware that of Jones’ positive test as this would violate WBA rules, may cause unnecessary harm to the innocent boxer [Lebedev], and would otherwise compromise the nature of WBA world title bouts.” The WBA ultimately declared Lebedev as champion based on Jones’ drug test results, and suspended Jones for two years.

As per documents submitted to the court by King’s attorneys (Civil Action No. 14 Civ. 3791 (SAS)), they argued that the WBA’s on-site supervisor stated that Jones’ drug test was unofficial and that the fight could go forward, and that the supervisor’s statements constituted an “irrevocable” ruling by the WBA. During the conference King’s attorney also claimed to have been unaware that Mr. Gilberto Mendoza of the WBA had informed World of Boxing’s representatives on the day of the rematch that the WBA would not sanction the bout due to Jones’ positive drug test. Furthermore, King’s attorneys argue that Jones failing the drug test “disabled” him, and therefore released King from the contract promise to ensure his participation in the match. (Case 1:14-cv-03791-SAS, Transcripts, Pre-Trial Conference, 07/23/14). King’s attorneys cite a case dating back to 1877, which claims that, if a person contracted to perform personal services, “without fault on the part of the covenantor becomes disabled, the obligation to perform is extinguished.”

The Court has directed the parties to obtain an affidavit from the WBA confirming whether the WBA’s ruling to revoke its sanction for the bout conformed with WBA’s internal rules. Upon receipt of that affidavit, the Court shall determine whether anything further may be required before plaintiffs can file a motion for summary judgment with respect to their claims against King.

Press Contact in USA:
Dennis Senkov
Email: Dennis(at)AuricAdvisors(dot)com
Tel: (212) 729-4561

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Dennis Serikov
+1 (212) 729-4561
Email >