Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 19-1068
AUSTIN TROUT
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
v.
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Whether the Honorable Court Erred when it ruled that the Contract
Venue Clause contained in Section 35(d) of the WBO’s Championship
Regulations is not controlling over the instant controversy.
Whether the Honorable District Court erred when it did not rule: 1)
that the arbitration forum intended by the WBO is unreasonable and
unjust; or 2) that hearing the case in said forum would constitute a
clear and patent inequity or would be unreasonable or unjust; or 3)
that enforcement of said clause would defeat the State's public policy.
Whether the Honorable Court erred when it ruled that the claims
under the Muhammad Ali boxing Reform Act are bound by the
purported arbitration agreement.
A. The Honorable Court Erred when it ruled that the Contract Venue
Clause contained in Section 35(d) of the WBO’s Championship
Regulations is not controlling over the instant controversy.
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
C. The Honorable District Court erred when it did not rule: 1) that the
arbitration forum intended by the WBO is unreasonable and unjust;
or 2) that hearing the case in said forum would constitute a clear and
patent inequity or would be unreasonable or unjust; or 3) that
enforcement of said clause would defeat the State's public policy.
D. The Honorable Court erred when it ruled that the claims under the
Muhammad Ali boxing Reform Act are bound by the purported
arbitration agreement.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes
Cases
Collazo-Rosado v. Univ. of P.R., 765 F.3d 86, 91 (1st Cir. 2014)) ........................13
Cullinane v. Uber Techs., Inc., 893 F.3d 53, 60 (1st Cir. 2018) .............................13
Extradition of Howard, 996 F.2d 1320, 1327 (1st Cir. 1993). ................................13
In re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co., 226 F.3d 160, 163 (2d Cir. 2002) ..................17
Joca-Roca Real Estate, LLC v. Brennan, 772 F.3d 945 (1st Cir. 2014) ..................22
Lang v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 813 F.3d 447, 454 (1st Cir. 2016) ....................13
Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp., 402 F.3d 1, 15(1st Cir. 2005) ...................17
Paine Webber, Inc. v. Elahi, 87 F.3d 589, 593 (1st Cir. 1996) ................................23
Pelletier v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 549 F.3d 578, 580 (1st Cir. 2008) ......................13
Rankin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 336 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 2003) .....................................17
Rivera Colón v. AT & T Mobility, PR, Inc., 913 f.3d 200 (1st Cir. 2019) ..............13
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Tyco Int'l (U.S.) Ltd. v. Swartz (In re Tyco Int'l Ltd. Sec. Litig.),
422 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2005) ............................................................................... 22, 23
No. 19-1068
AUSTIN TROUT
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
v.
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
(“Fed.R.App.P.”).
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
(A) The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico Court has
federal question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 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 diversity jurisdiction
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states.
This District Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The contract
at issue in this case provides for disputes to be resolved in the Puerto Rico federal
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
located for all of the parties than the United States District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico. Accordingly, venue is proper in the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391.
(B) The Honorable Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has jurisdiction over
this appeal under 28 U.S.C.A. §1291 and §41; the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure, drawn under the authority of 28 U.S.C. §2072; and the rules promulgated
2
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
by this Honorable Circuit of Appeals for the First Circuit under the authority of 28
U.S.C. §2071.
This is an appeal from a final decision of the District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico, granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and dismissing the
(C) On September 30, 2019, the Honorable District Court entered and notified
the Parties a Judgment dismissing the Complaint on the basis of the terms and
conditions of an Opinion and Order issued and entered on that same date.
Reconsideration, which was denied on November 26, 2018. On December 19, 2018,
Plaintiff Appellant Notice of Appeal with the district clerk in accordance with FRAP
(D) This appeal is from a final judgment that disposes of all parties’ claims.
Addendum 13.
3
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
C. Whether the Honorable District Court erred when it did not rule:
1) that the arbitration forum intended by the WBO is unreasonable and
unjust; or 2) that hearing the case in said forum would constitute a
clear and patent inequity or would be unreasonable or unjust; or 3)
that enforcement of said clause would defeat the State's public policy.
D. Whether the Honorable Court erred when it ruled that the claims
under the Muhammad Ali boxing Reform Act are bound by the
purported arbitration agreement.
The instant appeal is not about the merits of the allegations contained in the
Complaint nor the Amended Complaint. Rather, the appeal requires the revision of
the decision of the District Court to dismiss in its entirety a three year old case and
send it to arbitration. Therefore, the crux of the appeal lies in the procedural track of
the case. A revision of the procedural track of the case reveals several realities that
First, the procedural track of the case will establish that Section 35(d) of
and Regulations specifically establish that in any case in which the WBO is made a
party, said case can only be litigated in the state or federal courts of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Furthermore, the procedural track of the case will
establish as well that the WBO spent 21 months arguing in the state and federal
courts of New Mexico that Section 35(d) of the WBO Rules and Regulations
4
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
unequivocally required the parties to litigate the instant claim in the United States
any arbitration rights. Moreover, the WBO further waived any rights to arbitration
arbitration forum intended by the WBO is unreasonable and unjust; or 2) that hearing
the case in said forum would constitute a clear and patent inequity or would be
unreasonable or unjust; or 3) that enforcement of said clause would defeat the State's
public policy.
Finally, the appeal deals with the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, 15
USCS §§ 6301 et seq, and how the claims under this legislation are not subject to
arbitration, as the Act provides jurisdiction to state and federal courts and given the
fact that allowing the claims under this statute to go to arbitration will defeat the
whole purpose of the Act, which is to regulate and penalize wrongful acts by
5
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
1. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on November 16, 2015. Plaintiff originally filed
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. See, Docket No.
1.
3. Once the instant case was removed to federal court, as per Defendant WBO’s
express request, the WBO then moved the Court to dismiss the case for
improper venue under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). The WBO filed its motion to
dismiss on February 12, 2016, this is, three (3) days after filing its notice of
Section 35(d) in support of its request for dismissal for improper venue.
Appendix 90.
6
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
6. On February 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed its opposition to the WBO’s request for
9. On August 23, 2016, Defendant WBO filed a Motion for Transfer of Venue to
10.On August 23, 2016, Defendant WBO filed Defendant Organización Mundial
11.In the very first paragraph of the referenced motion, Defendant WBO
7
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Appendix 193.
12.On July 5, 2017, the Honorable Court rendered an Opinion and Order,
transferring the instant case to the United States District Court for the District
13.On August 28, 2017, Defendant WBO answered the original Complaint. Said
answer to the Complaint also contained a request for the instant case to be sent
14.The request for arbitration contained in Docket No. 27 constitutes the first
15.On September 15, 2017 Plaintiff Austin Trout filed an Amended Complaint.
Appendix 280-305.
16.On October 31, 2017, Defendant WBO filed its answer to the Amended
Complaint. Said answer to the Complaint also contained a request for the
18. On November 24, 2018, the WBO filed its reply to the opposition to the
19.On November 30, 2017, Appellant Trout filed his sur-reply to the motion to
8
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 15 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
20.On February 19, 2018, the appearing party served Defendant WBO with its
Appendix 505.
22.On March 7, 2018, the parties jointly requested an extension of the discovery
23.On April 3, 2018, counsel for the WBO sent a letter to the undersigned in
which it requested an extension of the agreed upon term for the production of
24.On April 11, 2018, Defendant WBO produced its answers to the outstanding
25.On May 1, 2018, the appearing party served Defendant WBO with his
Appendix 510.
26.Also on May 1, 2018, Defendant WBO served Plaintiff with its First Request
1Appellant Trout served his Frist Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents on
February, 2016, while the case was still at the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
9
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 16 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
27.On June 1, 2018, Plaintiff produced to Defendant WBO its initial expert
28.On June 8, 2018, Defendant WBO served Plaintiff with its First Request for
29.On June 13, 2018, Defendant WBO filed its Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert
30.On June 13, 2018, the 30(b)(6) deposition of the WBO was taken. Appendix
1.
31.On June 14, 2018, the deposition of Diana Meléndez was taken. Appendix 2.
32.On June 27, 2018, the Parties, jointly, requested a second extension of the
Appendix 439-447.
33.On June 29, 2018, the Honorable Court partially granted the joint motion for
extension of time. The Honorable Court extended the discovery deadline for
September 30, 2018. Such extension included expert discovery. See, Docket
No. 68.
34.On July 31, 2018, Plaintiff’s expert produced his report. Appendix 513.
10
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 17 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
36.On August 16, 2018, the deposition of Mr. Bob Spagnola was taken.
37.On August 17, 2018, the deposition of Mr. Luis Batista Salas was taken.
38.On August 30, 2018, the WBO produced its expert witness report, which
39.On September 18, 2018, the WBO’s expert witness deposition was taken in
40.On September 21, 2018, the deposition of Mr. Louis Bourke was taken in Las
41.On September 24, 2018, the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert witness, Alberto
42.On September 30, 2019, the Honorable District Court granted the WBO’s
request for arbitration and dismissed the case in its entirety. Appendix 468-
480.
43.On October 29, 2018, Appellant Trout filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
Appendix 481-502.
44.On November 6, 2018, the WBO filed its opposition to Appellant Trout’s
45.On November 20, 2018, Appellant Trout filed a reply to Appellee’s opposition
11
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 18 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
46.On November 26, 2018 the Honorable District Court denied Appellant’s
47.On December 19, 2018, Appellant Trout filed his Notice of Appeal.
Appendix 533-534.
V. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
requests from the Honorable Court to reverse the judgment entered by the
Honorable District Court on September 30, 2018 and November 26, 2018 and
to remand the case to the District Court for the continuance of the Proceedings.
the WBO’s Championship Regulations govern the forum selection for and
dispute between Plaintiff and the WBO; 2) the WBO waived any and all rights
unjust and/or because hearing the case in said forum would constitute a clear
claims are derived from federal legislation rather than from the WBO Rules
and Regulations.
VI. ARGUMENT
STANDARD OF REVIEW
12
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 19 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
on a spectrum of interwoven standards. At one end, when the appeal raises "solely
legal issues as to the enforceability of an arbitration clause," the appeal court will
look at it with a clean slate, or de novo. Rivera Colón v. AT & T Mobility, PR, Inc.,
913 f.3d 200 (1st Cir. 2019); Pelletier v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 549 F.3d 578, 580
(1st Cir. 2008); see also Britto v. Prospect Chartercare SJHSRI, LLC, 909 F. 3d 506,
511 (1st Cir. 2018) (explaining de novo review in this context). The same de novo
review applies when the facts surrounding the agreement are undisputed and the only
undisputed facts. See Cullinane v. Uber Techs., Inc., 893 F.3d 53, 60 (1st Cir. 2018).
Therefore, the Court should review the determination of the district court in the
instant appeal de novo. See Cullinane, 893 F.3d at 60. That means that the appeals
court will not provide any deference to the district court's conclusion and look at the
legal issues with clear eyes. See In re Extradition of Howard, 996 F.2d 1320, 1327
(1st Cir. 1993). And it also means that the Honorable Court "can affirm on any
ground appearing in the record--including one that the [district] judge did not rely
on." See Lang v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 813 F.3d 447, 454 (1st Cir. 2016) (citing
Under the referenced scope of review, let us discuss the previously identified
13
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 20 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Appendix 117.
importance to the controversy at hand. First, the referenced section establishes that
the WBO’s Regulations are to be interpreted in conformity with the Laws of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Second, any and all action in which the WBO is
made a party (as in the present case) may be brought only in the state or federal
Since the courts of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are the only forum
where a claim against the WBO can be filed, and since some of the claims in the
instant case arise from the WBO’s transgression of its very own championship
14
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 21 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
regulations, the only forum in which this case can be litigated is in the courts of the
Defendant WBO cannot establish that Section 35(d), contained in its own,
self-drafted Regulations: (1) was the product of fraud or overreaching; (2) its
States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico will be so gravely difficult and
inconvenient that the WBO will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in
court; or(4) enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in
Rodriguez Barril, Inc. v. Conbraco Industries, Inc., 619 F.3d 90, 93 (1st Cir. 2010).
Honorable Court, all through the docket, to litigate this case in the federal forum,
specifically the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Not only
did it moved the court to litigate this case in this District, but it prevailed in its intent.
Appendix 244-261. Defendant WBO’s request for removal to this District was
granted, on the unequivocal grounds that Section 35(d) was controlling, and no party
Section 35(d) of the WBO Championship Regulations is clear in its terms: the
only venue in which a claim against the WBO can be brought is the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico. The WBO is the only defendant in this case. The WBO has
15
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 22 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
consistently request from the Honorable Court to litigate this case in the District
Court of Puerto Rico. Defendant WBO prevailed in its request to litigate this case in
the District of Puerto Rico. There is simply no legal reason, or procedural window,
to try the present case elsewhere. Defendant WBO’s request for this case to be sent
B. The Honorable District Court erred when it ruled that Defendant WBO
did not waive any and all rights with respect to the enforcement of an
arbitration clause.
In order to determine whether the WBO waived any right to arbitration the
Honorable Court must evaluate: [1] whether the party has actually participated in the
lawsuit or has taken other action inconsistent with his right, . . . [2] whether the
litigation machinery has been substantially invoked and the parties were well into
the defendant to the plaintiff, . . . [3] whether there has been a long delay in
trial was near at hand. . . . Other relevant factors are [4] whether the defendants
asking for a stay of the proceedings,. . . [5] whether important intervening steps
arbitration . . .) had taken place, . . . and [6] whether the other party was
affected, misled, or prejudiced by the delay. Tyco Int'l (U.S.) Ltd. v. Swartz (In
16
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 23 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
re Tyco Int'l Ltd. Sec. Litig.), 422 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2005); FPE Found. v. Cohen,
801 F.3d 25; Restoration Preservation Masonry v. Grove Eur. Ltd., 325 F.3d 54, 60-
lightly inferred," thus reasonable doubts as to whether a party has waived the right
Inc. v. Grove Eur. Ltd., 325 F.3d 54, 61 (1st Cir. 2003). However, "an arbitration
Allstate Ins. Co., 336 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 2003); see Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage
Corp., 402 F.3d 1, 15(1st Cir. 2005) ("Undue delay in bringing arbitration . . . is
Waivers of arbitral rights need not be express, but may be implied from the
particular circumstances. See, Restoration Pres., 325 F.3d at 61 (noting that "there
are no per se rules," and that belated assertions of a right to arbitrate must be assessed
in "context"); In re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co., 226 F.3d 160, 163 (2d Cir. 2002)
(noting that there is no "bright line" rule as to waiver); Cabinetree of Wis., Inc. v.
The one and only reason the Honorable Court has Case Civil No. 17-1953 was
filed in the District of Puerto Rico is because the WBO invoked the District of Puerto
17
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 24 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Rico’s jurisdiction. The WBO did not invoke the Honorable Court’s jurisdiction in
This action is a civil action in which this court has original jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. §1332, and is one which may be removed to this Court
by WBO pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1), in that
the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of
interests and costs, and is between citizens of different states. Thus, this
action may properly be removed to this Court under 28 U.S.C.
§§1441(b) and 1446.
Not only did the WBO invoke the Honorable Court’s jurisdiction, it did so by
arguing that the article within the WBO Regulations that governed the jurisdictional
Appendix 89.
18
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 25 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Appendix 200.
The previous docket references were all drafted and submitted by the
the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court; 2. represents that the parties are required to
litigate this matter in the state or federal courts of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Again, these are all WBO representations and averments, which are
subject to the precepts of FRCP 11(b). All of these averments and requests were
filed within the Honorable Federal District Court of New Mexico before any
Ever since the instant claim was filed in the New Mexico state court in
November, 2015, the WBO could have requested the arbitration. It did not. Instead,
19
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 26 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
the WBO requested the case to be removed to federal court, expressly invoking the
federal jurisdiction of the court. When the case was at the federal district court in
New Mexico, the WBO could have requested the case to be sent to arbitration. It did
not. To the contrary, the WBO invoked the jurisdiction of the Puerto Rico District
Court, arguing that Section 35(d) is controlling and that the parties have a legal
There is no bright-line rule for a waiver of arbitral rights, and each case is to
be judged on its particular facts. Tyco Int'l (U.S.) Ltd. v. Swartz (In re Tyco Int'l Ltd.
Sec. Litig.), 422 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2005); Rankin,336 F.3d at 12.
In the instant case, the complaint was originally filed on November 16, 2015.
See, Docket No. 1. Defendants request for arbitration was filed on August 28, 2017.
See, Docket No. 27. As stated, the WBO could have requested arbitration since
November 2015. Instead, the WBO spent 21 months invoking the jurisdiction of the
federal court, and wholly and specifically arguing said petition under Section 35(d)of
the case to be litigated in this district, the WBO effectively waived any right to
arbitration.
20
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 27 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
This controversy (whether the instant claim should be sent to arbitration) was
fully briefed for the Honorable District Court’s ruling by November 30, 2017.
including factual and expert discovery in Puerto Rico and the mainland, and have
jointly requested the Honorable Court for an extension of the discovery deadline on
In all, the parties have exchanged written discovery in excess of 800 pages,
have taken 8 depositions and have exchanged expert reports. Discovery was all but
finished. As a matter of fact, the Honorable Court’s opinion and order sending the
case for arbitration was issued on the very last day of discovery, to which a 10 day
period for the filing of dispositive motions was to follow, as per the latest extension
Therefore, after the controversy was fully briefed, the parties engaged in
discovery at a rather fast pace. Not only that, when faced with an expiring discovery
deadline, the WBO requested the Honorable Court for an extension of time, twice.
thousands of dollars to the Plaintiff who, after been taken by the WBO to federal
court almost 3 years ago, now sees his case going back again to square one.
21
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 28 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
The WBO has taken other action inconsistent with any arbitration right, and
not available in arbitration . . .) have taken place. Tyco Int'l (U.S.) Ltd. v. Swartz (In
re Tyco Int'l Ltd. Sec. Litig.). Therefore, the WBO has waived any right to
arbitration.
"tame at best." Joca-Roca Real Estate, LLC v. Brennan, 772 F.3d 945 (1st Cir. 2014).
prejudice". Tyco Int'l (U.S.) Ltd. v. Swartz (In re Tyco Int'l Ltd. Sec. Litig.).
The WBO took Appellant Trout on a 21 month ride on federal court, just to
ask for arbitration once the case was brought to the District of Puerto Rico. The 21
month ride turned into little less than 36 months. This was, clearly, a dilatory practice
on part of the WBO. We must not forget that arbitration is "not meant to be another
weapon in the arsenal for imposing delay and costs in the dispute resolution
process”. Tyco Int'l (U.S.) Ltd. v. Swartz (In re Tyco Int'l Ltd. Sec. Litig.).
included 8 depositions, written discovery and expert reports. As per the order
contained in Docket No. 68, discovery was to end on September 30, 2018 and
22
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 29 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
This delay of 3 years has been extremely prejudicial to Plaintiff, and it is not
delay. Tyco Int'l (U.S.) Ltd. v. Swartz (In re Tyco Int'l Ltd. Sec. Litig.), 422 F.3d 41
(1st Cir. 2005); FPE Found. v. Cohen, 801 F.3d 25; Restoration Preservation
Masonry v. Grove Eur. Ltd., 325 F.3d 54, 60-61 (1st Cir. 2003).
C. The arbitration clause cannot be applied in the instant claim because the
forum chosen is unreasonable and unjust and/or because hearing the case in
said forum would constitute a clear and patent inequity or would be
unreasonable or unjust.
Given that the parties have selected Puerto Rico law in the agreement at issue
(Appendix 45), and the fact that there is a cause of action under Article 1802 of the
Puerto Rico Civil Code, the Court must rely on Puerto Rico contract law to interpret
the agreement. See, Paine Webber, Inc. v. Elahi, 87 F.3d 589, 593 (1st Cir. 1996).
In Unisys P.R., Inc. v. Ramallo Bros. Printing, 128 P.R. Dec. 842, 1991 Juris
P.R. 69 (P.R. 1991) the Puerto Rico Supreme Court found a solution to the issues
that previous case law left unsolved, guiding its analysis to United States precedent.
[T]he current federal doctrine favors [choice-of-law] clauses. The opposing party
A series of guidelines have been established through case law for determining
non-applicability of the forum selection clause. Among them, we find: 1) that the
forum chosen is unreasonable and unjust; or 2) that hearing the case in said
23
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 30 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
or unjust; or 3) that the clause is invalid because it was negotiated under fraud
or deceit; or 4) that enforcement of said clause would defeat the State's public
policy. Id.
arbitration proceeding in which the WBO would be both a party and a judge.
Appendix 44.
Therefore, as per the WBO’s regulation, this claim will be referred by the
President of the WBO (against whom very serious allegations are averred in the
24
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 31 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Amended Complaint, See, Appendix 295, 297, 301, 302) will originally receive the
complaint and later submit it to the Grievance Committee within the WBO.
ARTICLE: 1
Three persons designated by the President will
constitute the WBO Grievance Committee. They
shall not be members of the Executive Committee.
The Members of the Grievance Committee shall be
nominated by the President and confirmed by the
Executive Committee.
Defendant WBO’s President. Not only that, but the members of the Grievance
will:
ARTICLE: 2
Of the three members of the Committee, one
designated by the President will exercise the function
of Chairman. The Chairman and all other members of
the Committee have indeterminate terms and, and are
subject to replacement by the nomination of the
President of the WBO and confirmation of their
replacement by the Executive Committee.
25
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 32 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
present case to be tried, the entity presiding over Plaintiff’s claim are subject to
ARTICLE: 7
The decision of the Grievance Committee is a final
Arbitrations within the contemplation of 32 LPRA
Section 3201 et. seq. and the US Arbitration Act, Title
9 of the United States Code, and the Inter-American
Convention on International Commercial Arbitration
of July 30, 1975 and the Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration
Awards of June 10, 1958. All WBO participants
stipulate and agree that the nature of the sport requires
a prompt, final and uniform resolution of all disputes
concerning application of these Regulations by a
tribunal experienced with the application of these
Regulations and with special knowledge and
experience in world championship professional
boxing.
(e) All WBO participants acknowledge and agree that the mandatory
resort to the WBO Appeals Regulation is the sole and exclusive remedy
for any claim, appeal
or contest that arises from any right or status that is or could be subject
to these Regulations or which results or could result from or relate to
the interpretation or
26
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 33 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Appendix 117.
manipulating its ranking system, allegations that could carry criminal charges under
the Muhammad Ali Act to the WBO and its President personally, defendant WBO
There is simply no way the arbitration forum would provide a fair opportunity
contrary. This is not a claim between to boxers or between a boxer and a manager.
and not Section 35(e), governs. Section 35(d) provides the precise forum for claims
The existence of the referenced clause makes perfect sense. Cases in which
the WBO is a party cannot undergo an arbitration process in which the WBO is the
presiding judge. Section 35(d) is the only section within the WBO championship
unreasonable forum and trying the case in said forum would constitute a clear and
D. The claims under the Muhammad Ali boxing Reform Act cannot be
bound by the purported arbitration agreement.
Plaintiff’s causes of action do not derive solely from the WBO’s rules and
action that emanate from federal legislation. Such is the case of the claims brought
Jurisdiction for private claims under the Muhammad Ali Act is clearly vested
upon the courts of law, be it state court or federal court. Therefore, at a minimum,
the claims under the Muhammad Ali Act cannot be subject of an arbitration
proceeding, much less when the Defendant party would preside over it:
In its pertinent part, Section 6309(d) of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform
(d) Private right of action. Any boxer who suffers economic injury as a
result of a violation of any provision of this Act [15 USCS §§ 6301 et
seq.] may bring an action in the appropriate Federal or State court and
28
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 35 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
If allowed, compelling the arbitration of the claims under the Muhammad Ali
Act will defeat the purpose of the Act. Leaving Sanctioning Bodies, as the term is
defined in the statue which includes the WBO, free to circumvent the muster of
courts of law over claims alleging the WBO is violating the Muhammad Ali Act,
and will be able to ventilate such claims in arbitration before a panel designated by
the President of the WBO, who can dismiss any member of said panel at will. The
findings of Congress in Section 2 of the Muhammad Ali Act clearly show an intent
of Congress to regulate the actions of Sanctioning Bodies (such as the WBO) by way
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
Allowing the WBO to have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the
Muhammad Ali Claims through arbitration will be contrary to the spirit of the Act
and will severely dilute a boxer’s ability to claim relief under the Act, as well as it
will deprive courts of the ability to enforce compliance with the Act. The claims
30
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 37 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
The instant case should not have been dismissed by the Honorable District
First, the clear and unambiguous language of Section 35(d) demands that, in
any case in which the WBO is made a party, the only venue in which said case can
Appendix 117.
In addition, the WBO waived any and all rights to invoke a arbitration clause.
This waiver is two-folded. First, for 21 months the WBO requested the case to be
transferred from the courts of New Mexico to the Federal District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico. The WBO request was exclusively made under Section 35(d)
of the WBO Rules and Regulations. The WBO’s request for transfer of venue under
Section 35(d) was granted and was not appealed. Furthermore, the WBO engaged in
31
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 38 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
a rather extensive and costly discovery for the Plaintiff, which also amounts to a
The WBO would be party and judge in a case in which serious allegations,
that could carry criminal consequences to the WBO and its officials, are being
averred against it. This makes the WBO arbitration forum unreasonable and unjust
because hearing the case in said forum would constitute a clear and patent inequity
Finally, any and all claims under the Muhammad Ali Act cannot be sent to
arbitration, since the Act allocates jurisdiction in the state and federal courts of law
for private actions of boxers. Simply put, to allow the WBO to ventilate claims
against it under the Muhammad Ali Act under its purported arbitration forum will
effectively allow the WBO to never face a court of law for claims against it under
the Muhammad Ali Act, defeating the purpose and spirit of such a novel, and noble,
Act.
Mr. Austin Trout has spent the last 41 months trying to pursue his claims in a
court of law. Through all these years, Mr. Trout has employed an enormous amount
of time and hundreds of thousands of dollars in defending his case. To send this case
months ago. It is time for him to be heard. The judgment of the Honorable District
32
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 39 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
from the Honorable Court to reverse the judgment entered by the Honorable District
Court on September 30, 2018 and November 26, 2018 and to remand the case to the
District Court for the continuance of any and all further proceedings.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 16th day of April of the year 2019.
33
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 40 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 7,413 words excluding the parts of the brief
32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this
brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Word, in “Times
34
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 41 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
IX CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send
35
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 42 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 43 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 44 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 45 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 46 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 47 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 48 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 49 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 50 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 51 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 52 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 53 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 54 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 55 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 56 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117426823 Page: 57 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 Entry ID: 6246967