Given that the parties are still spending money to litigate, I have my doubts that this thing is going to settle anytime soon.
In my post here responding to a reported claim by Jeff Mayweather that the case was being dismissed as to Mayweather Jr., I indicated that even though the case was still active on the docket, parties often negotiate settlements for a period of time prior to formally filing a stipulation of dismissal with the court. Thus, it was possible that Jeff Mayweather's account was correct despite the fact that the docket still shows that the case is active and that the case has not been dismissed at least as to Mayweather Jr.
Given that Pacquiao just filed this brief -- and is continuing to spend money -- I have my doubts that this case is close to being resolved. Ordinarily, if parties are in settlement negotiations, they file a stipulation or otherwise at least attempt to put off deadlines -- so that money is not spent unnecessarily -- while they try to paper the settlement.
Here, given that Pacquiao's brief is only directed at Mayweather Promotions as a party, it is still possible that Mayweather Jr. could get dismissed individually, but would it really make a difference if Pacquiao intends to pursue his claims for defamation against Mayweather Promotions for Mayweather, Jr.'s alleged statements (as Pacquiao does -- described below).
On to the substance of the brief for those that are interested in the more technical aspects of the argument.
As set forth in my post here, the allegedly defamatory statement allegedly made by Leonard Ellerbe (on behalf of Mayweather Promotions) was as follows:
"This is a simple question. If you have nothing to hide, then why not comply?"
In its motion to dismiss, Mayweather Promotions argued, inter alia, as follows:
This factor is difficult to analyze because Mayweather Promotions did not make a statement of fact. It asked an open-ended question and merely invited a response from Pacquiao. . . reasonable people would see it as the open-ended question that it was inviting further explanations . . .
In Pacquiao's opposition, he argues, inter alia, as follows:
In this case, a reasonable person, aware of the assault on Pacquiao undertaken by Mayweather, Jr., Mayweather, Sr., and others, certainly could interpret Mayweather Promotions’ statement, '[i]f you have nothing to hide, then why not comply' to imply that Pacquiao was 'hiding' his performance-enhancing drug use. This is especially true because a reasonable listener would understand that, as a boxing promoter at the time engaged in confidential discussions with Pacquiao and his representatives, Mayweather Promotions has access to personal, intimate, confidential information the listener does not. See Manufactured Home Cmtys., Inc. v. County of San Diego, 544 F.3d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 2008). On a motion to dismiss, the question is not whether the jury would come to this conclusion, but if it could.Pacquiao also asserts that Mayweather Promotions' motion should be denied because it failed to address the other allegedly defamatory statements in the Amended Complaint, including statements allegedly made by Mayweather, Jr. as President of Mayweather Promotions and by Richard Schaefer, Oscar de la Hoya, Roger Mayweather and Mayweather, Sr. as alleged co-conspirators. I address some of these other statements in earlier posts and I also discuss the co-conspirator allegation if you are interested.
With respect to the Ellerbe statement, as set forth in my earlier post, I do not think this alleged statement was defamatory because Ellerbe is not asserting a fact about Pacquiao. Instead, he is speculating about potential motivations Pacquiao may have for not agreeing to random blood testing with no black-out dates leading up to a fight. Therefore, it seems to be protected opinion and nonactionable.
That said, this is a motion to dismiss, so the burden on Mayweather Promotions is high at this juncture.
Fight Lawyer
