Amended Complaint

Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 1 of 26
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
CIVIL NO.: 17-1953 (PAD)

AUSTIN TROUT
Plaintiff
v. VIOLATION OF THE MUHAMMAD ALI

ACT; BREACH OF CONTRACT; FRAUD;
ORGANIZACIN MUNDIAL DE BOXEO, DAMAGES
INC.
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY
Defendant.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Mr. Austin Trout (hereinafter
referred to as Plaintiff), through the undersigned attorneys,
and under the precepts of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(B) and the Honorable
Courts Case Management Order contained in Docket No. 25, very
respectfully States and Prays:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has federal question subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and the Muhammad Ali
Boxing Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. 6309(d) (hereinafter the Muhammad
Ali Act). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state
law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. The Court also has

Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(l) because
the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs, and is between citizens of different states. There is
complete diversity of citizenship.
2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
The contract at issue in this case provides for disputes to be
resolved in this judicial district. The forum selection clause in
the contract demonstrates that Puerto Rico is a convenient forum
for the defendants and that they consent to personal jurisdiction
herein. Also, there is no forum more convenient or more centrally
located for all of the parties than this Court. Accordingly, venue
is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
3. Plaintiff demands a jury trial of all triable issues.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Austin Trout is a citizen of the United States
of America, of legal age, and resident of Doa Ana County, New
Mexico.
5. Defendant Organizacin Mundial de Boxeo, Inc. (WBO) is
a corporation organized and with its principal place of business
in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Defendants last known address is 1056
Ave. Muoz Rivera, Suite 711, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00927.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2
Amended Complaint
Professional Boxer Austin Trout
6. Austin Trout is a professional boxer from Las Cruces,
New Mexico. He has lived almost his entire life in Las Cruces, New
Mexico.
7. During his youth and early adult years, Plaintiff had an
exceptional boxing amateur career. In 2004, he was the United
States Amateur Welterweight Champion. He served as an alternate to
the 2008 United States Olympic Boxing Team. He had over 160
victories as an amateur.
8. On September 16, 2005, Plaintiff made his professional
debut. From 2005 through 2011, Plaintiff built an undefeated
record.
9. On February 5, 2011, Plaintiff fought Rigoberto Alvarez
for the World Boxing Association Junior Middleweight Championship.
Plaintiff defeated Mr. Alvarez by a wide margin to become world
champion.
10. After three successful title defenses, Plaintiff fought
Puerto Rican star Miguel Cotto in Madison Square on December 1,
2012, in a bout televised on Showtime. Mr. Cotto, a six (6) time
world champion in four (4) different weight divisions, is highly
regarded and is considered to be one of the best boxers of his
generation. Plaintiff defeated Mr. Cotto by wide margins on all of
the scorecards.
3
Amended Complaint
11. Plaintiff next fought against Saul Canelo Alvarez on
April 20, 2013 at the Alamodome in San Antonio, Texas in front of
40,000 spectators in a fight that was again televised on Showtime.
Mr. Alvarez, a four (4) time world champion in two (2) different
weight divisions, is a major star of professional boxing who is
currently training for an upcoming bout with unified middleweight
champion, Gennady Golovkin1. Plaintiff lost a controversial
decision that many spectators and commentators felt he deserved to
win. Plaintiffs only other losses where to current World Boxing
Association Light Middleweight Champion Erislandy Lara, a former
amateur world champion, and two time, and current, world champion,
and Mr. Jermall Charlo, an undefeated former light middleweight
world champion.
12. Plaintiffs professional record stands at 30 wins, only
3 losses, with 17 of those wins coming by way of knockout.
Plaintiff has earned worldwide recognition for his talent and
accomplishments, and when not fighting often serves as a
commentator on television broadcasts for boxing.
The World Boxing Organization
13. The WBO is a professional organization that has
jurisdiction and competence over all of its associated
organizations and Members. By joining the WBO, Members agree to
1The Alvarez vs. Golovkin championship bout is expected to be one of the highest
grossing events in the history of boxing.
4
Amended Complaint
comply with the Statutes and other legal instruments that govern
the operation of the WBO. Thus, the privilege of membership
requires Members to abide by the governing rules and regulations
of the WBO, and other WBO mandates. Accordingly, the WBO governs
the conduct of boxing matches by and among its Members, including
governing the weight class ranking system and championship bout at
issue in the present litigation. The WBO also governs its promoter
Members.
14. The WBO is considered by most people in the boxing
industry to be one of the four major Sanctioning Organizations in
the sport of professional boxing, along with the International
Boxing Federation, World Boxing Association, and World Boxing
Council.
15. As per the WBO Constitution, the assets of the WBO derive
from and are allocated as follows:
a) The annual fees of the Members to be fixed in the

General Assembly;
b) The donations and contributions given to the
Organizations by natural or juridical, persons, national
or foreigners to promote professional boxing at the
world level;
c) The real and personal properties acquired by the
Organization pursuant to the law, as well as the
income from the possession of said properties;
d) The fees for sanctioning contest that must be canceled
by Promoters and Boxers in every boxing
event2
2The WBO supports itself financially through the imposition of Sanctions

Fees that amount to three (3%) of the purses for both the champion and
challenger. A purse is generally recognized term for the payment to a
boxer for any given fight. The WBO also imposes a promoters sanction fee
and required donation to the WBOs Welfare Fund by a given promoter, a
5
Amended Complaint
e) Any other income received by the organization.
16. The WBO maintains continuous and substantial activity in
Puerto Rico through its incorporation, physical presence, and own
actions in ranking fighters and holding championship fights on a
regular basis both itself and through its regional divisions, such
as the NABO and WBO Latino.
17. Plaintiff, at all times relevant herein, was a Member in
good standing of the WBO. Under the applicable rules and
regulations of the WBO, Plaintiff was the Best Classified
Contender Available for the WBO Super Welterweight Championship,
at least, during the months of June, July, August, September and
October 2015.
18. According to its Constitution, the WBOs objective and
purpose, in part, is to [e]stablish the operating rules of the
activities carried out by the Members of the Organization,
regarding the practice of professional boxing at world level.
19. The WBO has a Constitution, By-Laws, and Regulations
that ostensibly govern its practices as a boxing Sanctioning
Organization.
combined total of which can range from anywhere between $4,000 and $25,000
depending upon the total purses of the boxers in any given championship
fight.
6
Amended Complaint
20. The WBO Constitution, Rules and Regulations constitute
binding contracts between the WBO and its Members, including
professional boxers such as Plaintiff.
21. Since the privilege of membership requires Members to
abide by the governing rules and regulations of the WBO, and other
WBO mandates, since the terms of the WBO Constitution, Rules and
Regulations can be unilaterally and arbitrarily changed and
amended by the WBO, and since the provisions of these Constitution,
Rules and Regulations are not subject to any kind of negotiation
between the WBO and its Members, the WBOs Constitution, Rules and
Regulations constitute an adhesion contract.
22. Pursuant to the rules established by its governing
bodies, the WBO recognizes champions in numerous weight classes in
professional boxing.
23. Also pursuant to these rules and regulations, as well as
to the applicable federal legislation discussed herein, the WBO
ranks professional boxers in each weight division. These rankings
determine who has the ability to fight for the WBO title according
to its Regulations.
24. The WBO establishes that its Constitution, Rules and
Regulations are subject to, and shall be interpreted and enforced
as consistent with, the Professional Boxing Safety Act, Title 15
Chapter 89 Sections 6301 et. seq., and any other Federal statute
or regulation in force, and as amended from time to time.
7
Amended Complaint
25. In its Rules and Regulations, the WBO demands
professional boxers, such as Plaintiff, to comply with the
Association of Boxing Commissions Criteria for Ratings of
Professional Boxers.
26. Pursuant to WBO Regulations, if a title is declared
vacant, the two Best Classified Contenders Available are entitled
to fight for the vacant title.
27. The minimum purse bid for a junior middleweight title
fight for a vacant title would be $200,000 with each fighter
guaranteed at least 40% of that amount depending upon the
geographical location of the fight.
28. Recognition as a champion by the WBO is commercially
valuable and provides the champion with certain rights and
privileges not held by any other boxer Member of the WBO in his
weight class. The accolade of being the WBO World Champion also
has considerable monetary value. For example, championship bouts
typically have higher commercial value than non-championship
bouts, resulting in higher payments to the participants, than non-
championship bouts.
29. Even with the relatively recent proliferation of title
belts that result in such championship fights among the major
sanctioning bodies, the concept of a title fight and the chance to
be a world title holder continues to capture popular imagination.
As the WBO Regulations eloquently state:
8
Amended Complaint
The World Championship has been established for generations
as the highest objective in professional boxing. A World
Championship is not the property of any boxer. The
Championship is a trust, subject to the conditions defined
herein, for the use and benefit of all boxers and boxing fans,
who through their contribution of time, effort, risks, and
resources sustain the existence of the profession. The World
Boxing Organization encourages each World Champion and
Challenger to be an example of the highest ideals and spirt
of sportsmanship.
30. Beyond that, status as a world title holder opens doors
for a professional fighter for sponsorship, marketing, and
endorsement opportunities that have significant financial value.
Congress Enacts the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act
31. Congress enacted the Muhammad Ali Act on May 26, 2000 to
protect the rights and welfare of professional boxers by preventing
certain exploitive, oppressive and unethical business practices.
32. In enacting the Muhammad Ali Act, Congress specifically
recognized that the sport of boxing operates without any private
sector association, league, or centralized industry organization
to establish uniform and appropriate business practices and
ethical standards which lead to repeated occurrences of
disreputable and coercive business practices in the boxing
industry, to the detriment of professional boxers nationwide.
33. Furthermore, Congress stated that Sanctioning
Organizations, such as defendant WBO, have not established
credible and objective criteria to rate professional boxers, and
operate with virtually no industry or public oversight. Their
9
Amended Complaint
ratings are susceptible to manipulation, have deprived boxers of
fair opportunities for advancement, and have undermined public
confidence in the integrity of the sport. In addition, Congress
established that Open competition in the professional boxing
industry has been significantly interfered with by restrictive and
anticompetitive business practices of certain promoters and
sanctioning bodies, to the detriment of the athletes and the ticket
buying public. Common practices of promoters and Sanctioning
Organizations represent restraints of interstate trade in the
United States.
34. The prevailing abusive and arbitrary policies of
promoters and Sanctioning Organizations convinced Congress that it
was necessary and appropriate to establish national contracting
reforms to protect professional boxers and prevent exploitive
business practices, and to require enhanced financial disclosures
to State athletic commissions to improve the public oversight of
the sport.
35. In order to implement and enforce the mandates of the
Muhammad Ali Act, Congress ordered the Association of Boxing
Commissions (hereinafter ABC), among other things, to develop
and approve guidelines for objective and consistent written
criteria for the ratings of professional boxers. 15 U.S.C.
6307(c)(a).
10
Amended Complaint
36. As such, the Muhammad Ali Act specifically requires a
Sanctioning Organization, like defendant WBO, to abide and follow
the guidelines for objective and consistent written criteria for
the ratings of professional boxers established by the Association
of Boxing Commissions. 15 U.S.C. 6307(c)(a).
37. When there is a change in the rating of a classified
professional boxer, the Muhammad Ali Act further requires
Sanctioning Organizations, like defendant WBO, to provide to the
boxer a written explanation of the organizations criteria, its
rating of the boxer, and the rationale or basis for its rating
(including a response to any specific questions submitted by the
boxer); and submit a copy of its explanation to the Association of
Boxing Commissions. 15 U.S.C. 6307(c)(b).
38. Under the Muhammad Ali Act, Sanctioning Organizations
must also, with respect to a change in the rating of a boxer
previously rated by such organization in the top 10 boxers, post
a copy, within 7 days of such change, on its Internet website or
home page, if any, including an explanation of such change, for a
period of not less than 30 days; and provide a copy of the rating
change and explanation to an association to which at least a
majority of the State boxing commissions belong. 15 U.S.C.
6307(c)(b)(1)(2).
Plaintiff Austin Trout Enters and Ascends in the WBO Junior
Middleweight Rankings
11
Amended Complaint
39. In 2014, Plaintiff gave consideration to the next step
in his career. He determined that he would aspire to become the
WBO Junior Middleweight champion. Plaintiff was unranked by the
WBO in early 2014.
40. After discussion with approval by the WBO of the
opportunity to enter its rankings, the WBO ranked Plaintiff No. 9
in November 2014. Plaintiff gave up other potential career paths
and opportunities to make a commitment to rise in the WBO rankings
and eventually compete for its world junior middleweight title.
41. During this time, Plaintiff fought regularly to put
together a string of victories, most of which by knockout.
Plaintiff defeated Daniel Dawson on August 22, 2014 on a fight
televised on ESPN 2. Plaintiff defeated Luis Grajeda by knockout
on December 11, 2014 in a fight televised on ESPN 2. Plaintiff
defeated Luis Galarza by knockout on May 9, 2015 with highlights
of the fight being shown on a Premier Boxing Champions telecast on
CBS. Plaintiff defeated Joey Hernndez by knockout on September 9,
2015 on a fight televised on Fox Sports 1.
42. During this time, Plaintiff continued to rise in the WBO
rankings. By June 2015, the WBO ranked Plaintiff No. 4 in its
junior middleweight rankings.
The WBO Unlawfully Strips Plaintiff Austin Trout from its
Rankings.
12
Amended Complaint
43. During this time, Demetrius Andrade was the WBO junior
middleweight champion, having won the title by a victory on
November 9, 2013. After defending his title once in June 2014, Mr.
Andrade entered into a period of inactivity.
44. On July 15, 2015, the WBO sent Mr. Andrade a Show Cause
letter indicating that he had ten days to show cause as to why Mr.
Andrade had not defended his championship. In doing so, the WBO
indicated that it must enforce its rules.
45. On July 31, 2015, the WBO World Championship Committee
entered a resolution to strip Demetrius Andrade of his WBO Junior
Middleweight World Championship.
46. At this point, pursuant to its Regulations, the WBO was
supposed to provide an opportunity for the two Best Classified
Contenders Available to negotiate to fight for the vacant title.
47. Pursuant to the June 2015 rankings, the top four
contenders were as follows: 1. Saul Canelo Alvarez; 2. Oleksandr
Spyrko; 3. Michel Soro; and 4. Austin Trout.
48. It has been known for most of the calendar year that Mr.
Alvarez would fight Puerto Rican Miguel Cotto in a lucrative pay-
per-view fight in November 20153, so Mr. Alvarez would not be an
available contender. By this time, Mr. Michel Soro was involved in
3 The Saul lvarez vs. Miguel Cotto fight in fact took place on November 21,
2015.
13
Amended Complaint
a legal dispute with his promoter that, by the WBOs own
determination, prevented him from being available.
49. As a result, under its rankings as of June 2016,
Plaintiff would have qualified as one of the two Best Classified
Contenders available to fight for the vacant title.
50. In July 2015 and August 2015, however, Plaintiff,
despite not having a lost a fight, fell completely out of the
rankings. Instead, Mr. Liam Beefy Smith became the No. 4 and No.
3 ranked fighter in the respective monthly rankings.
51. Plaintiff requested several times an explanation from
the WBO as to why he disappeared from the rankings during the
months of July and August 2015.
52. Defendant WBO did not notify Plaintiff of the change in
his rankings, nor did the WBO provide a written explanation as to
the objective reasons, if any, for Plaintiffs disappearance from
the WBO rankings in July and August 2015.
53. Defendant WBO did not notify the ABC about the reasons
for Plaintiffs change in the WBO rankings in July and August 2015.
54. Defendant WBO did not post on its website the reasons
for Plaintiffs disappearance from the WBO rankings in July and
August 2015 within and during the term established in the Muhammad
Ali Act.
55. By failing to provide a written explanation as to the
objective reasons for Plaintiffs disappearance from the WBO
14
Amended Complaint
rankings in July and August 2015, the WBO violated the precise
requirements of the Muhammad Ali Act.
56. On August 24, 2015, the WBO issued an Approval Letter
for a vacant WBO Junior Middleweight to take place between Liam
Beefy Smith and John Thompson in Manchester, England. Neither
Mr. Smith nor Mr. Thompson have ever been a world champion or
fought and defeated anyone close to the caliber of the opponents
of Plaintiff. Pursuant to the WBOs own binding rules and
regulations, neither Mr. Smith nor Mr. Thompson had the merits to
be considered the two Best Classified Contenders Available instead
of Plaintiff.
57. By declaring Mr. Liam Smith and Mr. John Thompson the
two Best Classified Contenders Available instead of Plaintiff, the
WBO did not abide to, and violated, the objective and consistent
written criteria for the rating of professional boxers, as
developed, approved and issued by the ABC.
58. Mr. Smith defeated Mr. Thompson on October 2015 and won
the WBO Junior Middleweight champion. Plaintiff re-entered the
rankings in September 2015. The WBO had Plaintiff ranked as the
No. 3 contender as of the October 2015 rankings.
59. When questioned by media sources, the WBO indicated that
Plaintiffs disappearance from the rankings was an oversight.
Furthermore, in direct communications, the WBO indicated any
15
Amended Complaint
concerns were resolved by Plaintiff being re-included in the
rankings in September 2015.
60. In actuality, the WBO disregarded its rules and
regulations in exchange for financial payments from English
promoter Frank Warren, whose financial clout was such that the WBO
fraudulently showed no regard whatsoever for its own rules,
regulations, or any form of ethics to prevent Plaintiff from
obtaining an earned championship fight.
61. As a result, Plaintiff lost at a minimum a purse of over
$80,000 which likely would have been substantially larger given
his reputation in the sport and ability to obtain a television
market in the United States for hits fights.
62. Likewise, the WBOs actions, which deprived Plaintiff of
his earned championship bout, foreclosed a window of opportunity
for plaintiff to derive income related to being a world boxing
champion including, but not limited to, substantially higher
purses for bouts and commercial endorsements.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF THE MUHAMMAD ALI BOXING REFORM ACT
63. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 62 as if
fully set forth herein.
64. Congress passed the Ali Act to protect the rights and
welfare of professional boxers.
16
Amended Complaint
65. The WBO is legally required to strictly comply with the
Muhammad Ali Act.
66. The Muhammad Ali Act required the WBO, as a Sanctioning
Organization, to abide and follow the guidelines for objective and
consistent written criteria for the ratings of professional boxers
established by the Association of Boxing Commissions. 15 U.S.C.
6307(c)(a).
67. The Muhammad Ali Act further requires Sanctioning
Organizations, like defendant WBO, to provide to the boxer a
written explanation of the organizations criteria, its rating of
the boxer, and the rationale or basis for its rating (including a
response to any specific questions submitted by the boxer); and
submit a copy of its explanation to the Association of Boxing
Commissions. 15 U.S.C. 6307(c)(b).
68. Under the Muhammad Ali Act, Sanctioning Organizations
must also, with respect to a change in the rating of a boxer
previously rated by such organization in the top 10 boxers, post
a copy, within 7 days of such change, on its Internet website or
home page, if any, including an explanation of such change, for a
period of not less than 30 days; and provide a copy of the rating
change and explanation to an association to which at least a
majority of the State boxing commissions belong. 15 U.S.C.
6307(c)(b)(1)(2).
17
Amended Complaint
69. As set forth fully above, the WBO did not follow
objective criteria, as mandated by the Muhammad Ali Act, in the
rankings for the 154 pounds weight division for the months of July
and August 2015, with respect to Plaintiff.
70. The WBO took Plaintiff completely out of the 154 pound
division rankings for the months of July and August 2015.
71. The WBO failed to provide Plaintiff with a written
explanation expressing its criteria for taking Plaintiff out from
the July and August 2015 rankings, nor did it notified such written
explanation to the ABC.
72. The WBO did not post on its website the reasons for
Plaintiffs disappearance from the WBO rankings in July and August
2015 within and during the term established in the Muhammad Ali
Act.
73. The WBO violated the guidelines for objective and
consistent written criteria for the ratings of professional boxers
established by the Association of Boxing Commissions, and thus the
Muhammad Ali Act, when it ranked Mr. Liam Smith and/or Mr. John
Thompson higher than Plaintiff.
74. As such, the WBO has repeatedly and intentionally
violated the Muhammad Ali Act.
75. As noted above, Plaintiff has suffered economic injury
as a result of the WBOs repeated violations of the Muhammad Ali
Act because, if the WBO had kept Plaintiff in his duly earned
18
Amended Complaint
ranking, Plaintiff would have fought for the WBO 154 pound world
championship instead of Mr. Smith and/or Mr. Thompson. By depriving
Plaintiff of his earned championship bout, the WBO foreclosed a
window of financial and goodwill opportunities that are entailed
in the prestige of being a world boxing champion.
76. Additionally, by being taken completely out of the
rankings for the months of July and August 2015 by the WBO,
Plaintiff has suffered economic injury because such a sudden
disappearance from the rankings of a recognized Sanctioning
Organization eroded and damaged his professional goodwill,
prestige and marketing value.
77. As such, the WBO is liable to Plaintiff for damages under
the Muhammad Ali Act. 15 U.S.C. 6309(d).
78. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount estimated in no
less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00).
79. In addition, under the Muhammad Ali Act, Plaintiff is
entitled to the recovery of all court costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses, along with interest and such other
and further relief the Court deems just, proper and equitable. 15
U.S.C. 6309(d).
COUNT II
DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
FRAUD
19
Amended Complaint
81. Article 1077 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A.
3052, in its pertinent part, states as follows:
3052. Right to rescind mutual obligations
The right to rescind the obligations is considered as

implied in mutual ones, in case one of the obligated
persons does not comply with what is incumbent upon him.
The person prejudiced may choose between exacting the
fulfilment of the obligation or its rescission, with
indemnity for damages and payment of interest in either
case. He may also demand the rescission, even after
having requested its fulfilment, should the latter
appear impossible.
The court shall order the rescission demanded, unless
there are sufficient causes authorizing it to fix a
period.
82. The WBO Constitution, Rules and Regulations constitute
binding contracts between the WBO and Plaintiff Austin Trout.
83. Since the privilege of membership requires Members to
abide by the governing rules and regulations of the WBO, and other
WBO mandates, since the terms of the WBO Constitution, Rules and
Regulations can be unilaterally and arbitrarily changed and
amended by the WBO, and since the provisions of these Constitution,
Rules and Regulations are not subject to any kind of negotiation
between the WBO and its Members, the WBOs Constitution, Rules and
Regulations constitute an adhesion contract.
84. Under the referenced binding contracts, the WBO had a
duty to abide by the precepts of the Muhammad Ali Act including,
20
Amended Complaint
but not limited to, the sole use of the guidelines for objective
and consistent written criteria for the ratings of professional
boxers established by the Association of Boxing Commissions.
duty to rank Plaintiff in the 154 pound division rankings in the
months of July and August 2015.
duty to rank Plaintiff among the top four (4) boxers ranked in the
154 pound division rankings in the months of July and August 2015.
87. Under the referenced binding contracts, once the 154
pound championship was declared vacant in July, 2015, the WBO had
a duty to declare Plaintiff one of the two Best Classified
Contenders Available.
duty to order Plaintiff and the other Best Classified Contenders
Available to negotiate a contract.
duty to, in case negotiations between Plaintiff and the other Best
Classified Contender Available failed, order a purse bid.
duty to order a championship bout between Plaintiff and the other
Best Classified Contender Available.
91. The WBO has breached each and every of its contractual
duties towards Plaintiff, as described in Paragraphs 82 through 87
21
Amended Complaint
and, as such, shall indemnify Plaintiff for the damages suffered
because of this breach. 31 L.P.R.A. 3052.
92. The referenced indemnification includes, not only the
value of Plaintiffs economic loss, but that of the future earnings
Plaintiff lost due to the WBOs breach of its contractual duties.
93. As a result of the WBOs breach of its contractual
duties, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount estimated in no
less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00).
COUNT III
FRAUD
95. The WBO has solicited and accepted financial
remuneration from promoters and/or managers to fix ratings to give
certain boxers an opportunity to fight for a title that its
regulations would not otherwise allow.
96. This fraudulent pattern of unfair trade practices has
victimized countless professional boxers as well as the integrity
of the sport itself, particularly in this case as it relates to
Plaintiff.
97. The WBO falsely represented to Plaintiff that if a title
is declared vacant, the two Best Classified Contenders Available
are allowed to fight for the vacant title.
22
Amended Complaint
98. The WBO falsely represented to Plaintiff through his
rankings status as of June 2015 that would fight for the vacant
title.
99. These representations were material.
100. These misrepresentations were made with the intent to
induce Plaintiffs reliance.
101. Plaintiff detrimentally relied upon Defendants
misrepresentation.
102. Defendants fraud and fraudulent inducement has caused
Plaintiff to suffer damage. Plaintiff has suffered damage from
Defendants actionable fraud.
103. Defendants fraud was willful, wanton, fraudulent and
malicious.
104. As a result, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount
estimated in no less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00),
Under Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A.
5141.
COUNT IV
NEGLIGENCE
106. The WBO negligently took Plaintiff out of the 154 pound
divisional rankings without any lawful justification.
23
Amended Complaint
107. The WBO negligently declared two fighters that were not
Plaintiff as the two Best Classified Contenders Available and
negligently ordered a championship fight for the WBO 154 pound
world championship between them.
108. Defendants actions have caused Plaintiff to suffer
damage. Plaintiff has suffered damage from Defendants actionable
negligence.
109. As a result, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount
estimated in no less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00),
Under Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A.
5141.
PRAYER OF RELIEF
110. Entry of a judgment pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 6309(d),
declaring that the WBO, by its actions, has violated the Muhammad
Ali Boxing Reform Act in the way and manner herein stated and
awarding monetary damages in an amount of no less than Ten million
Dollars ($10,000,000.00).
111. Entry of a judgment pursuant to 31 L.P.R.A. 3052
declaring that the WBO, by its actions, has breached its
contractual duties with regards to Plaintiff and awarding monetary
damages in an amount of no less than Ten million Dollars
($10,000,000.00).
112. Entry of a judgment pursuant to 31 L.P.R.A. 5141
declaring that the WBO, by its actions, has caused damages to
24
Amended Complaint
Plaintiff and awarding monetary damages in an amount of no less
than Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000.00).
113. Entry of Judgment for the recovery of all court costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, along with interest
and such other and further relief the Court deems just, proper and
equitable. 15 U.S.C. 6309(d).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment for damages, all court
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, along with
interests and such other and further relief the Court deems just,
proper and equitable.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this same date, we electronically
filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF
system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel
of record.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 29th day of August, 2017.
25
Amended Complaint
/S MIGUEL J. ORTEGA NNEZ
Miguel J. Ortega Nnez
USDC 220609
CANCIO, NADAL, RIVERA &
DAZ,PSC
PO Box 364966
San Juan, PR 00936-4966
403 Ave. Muoz Rivera
Hato Rey, PR 00918-3345
Tel. (787) 767-9625
Fax (787) 622-3461
Email: mortega@cnrd.com
26

Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 1 of 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL NO.: 17-1953 (PAD)

v. VIOLATION OF THE MUHAMMAD ALI

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Mr. Austin Trout (hereinafter

referred to as Plaintiff), through the undersigned attorneys,

and under the precepts of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(B) and the Honorable

Courts Case Management Order contained in Docket No. 25, very

respectfully States and Prays:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has federal question subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and the Muhammad Ali

Boxing Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. 6309(d) (hereinafter the Muhammad

law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. The Court also has

the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest

and costs, and is between citizens of different states. There is

complete diversity of citizenship.

2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

The contract at issue in this case provides for disputes to be

resolved in this judicial district. The forum selection clause in

the contract demonstrates that Puerto Rico is a convenient forum

for the defendants and that they consent to personal jurisdiction

herein. Also, there is no forum more convenient or more centrally

is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3. Plaintiff demands a jury trial of all triable issues.

4. Plaintiff Austin Trout is a citizen of the United States

of America, of legal age, and resident of Doa Ana County, New

5. Defendant Organizacin Mundial de Boxeo, Inc. (WBO) is

a corporation organized and with its principal place of business

in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Defendants last known address is 1056

6. Austin Trout is a professional boxer from Las Cruces,

7. During his youth and early adult years, Plaintiff had an

exceptional boxing amateur career. In 2004, he was the United

States Amateur Welterweight Champion. He served as an alternate to

8. On September 16, 2005, Plaintiff made his professional

debut. From 2005 through 2011, Plaintiff built an undefeated

9. On February 5, 2011, Plaintiff fought Rigoberto Alvarez

for the World Boxing Association Junior Middleweight Championship.

Plaintiff defeated Mr. Alvarez by a wide margin to become world

10. After three successful title defenses, Plaintiff fought

Puerto Rican star Miguel Cotto in Madison Square on December 1,

2012, in a bout televised on Showtime. Mr. Cotto, a six (6) time

world champion in four (4) different weight divisions, is highly

regarded and is considered to be one of the best boxers of his

generation. Plaintiff defeated Mr. Cotto by wide margins on all of

April 20, 2013 at the Alamodome in San Antonio, Texas in front of

40,000 spectators in a fight that was again televised on Showtime.

weight divisions, is a major star of professional boxing who is

currently training for an upcoming bout with unified middleweight

champion, Gennady Golovkin1. Plaintiff lost a controversial

decision that many spectators and commentators felt he deserved to

win. Plaintiffs only other losses where to current World Boxing

Association Light Middleweight Champion Erislandy Lara, a former

and Mr. Jermall Charlo, an undefeated former light middleweight

12. Plaintiffs professional record stands at 30 wins, only

3 losses, with 17 of those wins coming by way of knockout.

Plaintiff has earned worldwide recognition for his talent and

accomplishments, and when not fighting often serves as a

commentator on television broadcasts for boxing.

The World Boxing Organization

13. The WBO is a professional organization that has

jurisdiction and competence over all of its associated