Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 19-1068
AUSTIN TROUT
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
v.
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
1
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117449126 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Entry ID: 6259555
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................5
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. Likewise,
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.
B. The Honorable Court erred when it ruled that the claims under the
Muhammad Ali boxing Reform Act are bound by the purported
arbitration agreement.
2
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117449126 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Entry ID: 6259555
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes
S.RepNo.106-83(1999)……………………………………………………………10
106Cong.Rec.H3489-H3490(dailyed.May22, 2000)……………………………5,13
Cases
Tankanow v. Rivera
22 Mass.L.Rep.596 (Mass.Super 2007). ....................................................................9
3
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117449126 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Entry ID: 6259555
D. Moore, "Down for the Count: Is McCain's Bill the One to Lift Boxing Off the
Canvas," 4 Va. Sports & Ent. L. J. 198, 212-14 (2005) …………………………….8
Michael J. Jurek, " Janitor or Savior: The Role Congress in Professional Boxing
Reform," 67 Ohio St.L.J. 1187 (2006). ……………………………………………..9
Scott Baglio, " The Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act: The First Jab at
Establishing Credibility in Professional Boxing," 68 Fordam L.Rev. 2257, 2268
(2000)………………………………………………………………………………9
4
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117449126 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Entry ID: 6259555
I. ARGUMENT
“The day this bill is signed into law cannot come soon enough.
I pray justice will be done and somehow, along the way, honor
can be restored to this sport.”
This reply will address certain specific matters raised in Appellee’s opposition brief,
and it fully adopts and incorporates herein the Appeal Brief filed on April, 2019.
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. Likewise, 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 its opposition brief, the WBO tries to support the District Court’s finding that
there was “no tension between the two clauses (35(d) and 35(e))”, further concurring
with the District Court in that “these provisions of the Championship Regulations
can be reconclided by applying “Section 35(d) [to] govern[] choice of law forum in
the event the WBO is made a party to a litigation regarding a dispute not subject
to arbitration.”” (App. 474). The WBO goes further to argue that this is evidenced
5
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117449126 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Entry ID: 6259555
Contrary to the WBO’s contention, Section 35(d) not only applies to appeals
from determinations of the WBO, but also when a party seeks to enforce, interpret
forums are the Courts of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Federal
As to the issue of waiver, the WBO seems to argue that it could have requested
the case to be sent to arbitration only after the case was brought to the Federal
District of Puerto Rico. This argument simply holds no water. The WBO could have
1 Further corroborating that a finding of the Grievance Committee is a finding of the WBO itself.
6
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117449126 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Entry ID: 6259555
requested the case to be sent to arbitration when the claim was first filed in the New
Mexico State Court on November 2015. It did not. The WBO could have requested
the case to be sent to arbitration when the case was removed to the New Mexico
Federal District Court in February 2016. It did not. As a matter of fact, Section 35(e)
of the WBO’s Championship Regulations is not used once in the WBO’s arguments
to bring the case to the District of Puerto Rico. If the WBO’s purported reason to
bring the case to the District of Puerto Rico was so that it could lawfully ask for the
case to be sent to arbitration, the WBO would, or should, have said so. It simply did
not. At all times, the WBO unequivocally averred that the parties were required to
litigate this claim in the courts of Puerto Rico, pursuant to Section 35(d) of the
WBO’s own Championship Regulations. After almost 4 years of litigation, and tens
allow the WBO to shift horses after arguing against any other section but 35(d) for
21 months2.
B. The Honorable Court erred when it ruled that the claims under the
Muhammad Ali boxing Reform Act are bound by the purported arbitration
agreement.
In order to establish that the claims under the Muhammad Ali Act are not subject
to arbitration, Appellant must point to something in the text or the legislative history
2 And now blaming Appellant for conducting himself in “defiance of governing forum-selection and
arbitration provisions contained in the WBO Championship Regulations”. (Appellees Opposition Brief, page
11)
7
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117449126 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Entry ID: 6259555
inherent conflict between the policies and purposes of the Act and mandatory
arbitration. Bercovitch v. Baldwin School, Inc., 133 F.3d 141, 149 (1st Cir. 1998).
While the discussion of the text of the Muhammad Ali Act was made in the appeal
brief, Appellant Austin Trout hereby proceeds to discuss the legislative intent behind
the statutory text. As the Honorable Court will readily observe, the legislative intent
claims of illegal, fraudulent and potentially criminal acts are attributed, will
Under the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-272, 110
Stat. 3309, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 6301-13, the first federal legislation related to
boxing was adopted. It established health and safety standards, and limited oversight
by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission was authorized. See
D. Moore, "Down for the Count: Is McCain's Bill the One to Lift Boxing Off the
Canvas," 4 Va. Sports & Ent. L. J. 198, 212-14 (2005) ("Down for the Count"). This
legislation was amended in 2000 with the adoption of the Muhammad Ali Boxing
Reform Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 160-210 § 3, 114 Stat. 321, 322 (2000), codified
at 15 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (hereinafter “Ali Act”). By adopting the Ali Act, Congress
made specific findings about the professional sport of boxing. Congress stated that,
8
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117449126 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Entry ID: 6259555
establish uniform and appropriate business practices and ethical standards which has
led to disreputable and coercive business practices in the boxing industry. Pub. L.
events, the welfare of boxers, and to "serve the public interest by closely supervising
boxing activity in their jurisdiction." Id. Congress also indicated that state boxing
competing in their jurisdiction are being subject to contract terms and business
practices which may violate State regulations, or are onerous and confiscatory. Id.
Corruption and manipulation against professional boxing sport have been described
as a plague of problems and nightmarish reality.
9
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117449126 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Entry ID: 6259555
boxing industry, while discussing the need for the legislation, it concluded the
following:
10
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117449126 Page: 11 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Entry ID: 6259555
Congress of the United States considered and passed the bill H.R. 1832. On
November 08, 1999, the House of Representatives of the United States moved to
suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 1832, as amended. Part of the discussions
made on such date was the inclusion of various letters for the Record. One which
was included was made by Mr. Muhammad Ali, on November 8, 1999 to the House
of Representatives, and expressed that “[w]e strongly support this bill which will
protect boxers from exploitations and unfair treatment by unscrupulous promoters
and other business interests that dominate this troubled industry.” 106 Cong. Rec.
H11653 (daily ed. Nov. 8, 1999).
Also, New York Representative, Eliot Engel spoke to the Members about his
strong support of the bill H.R. 1832. He added the following:
For years, there has been widespread concern about the boxing industry
in the United States. Not only have scandals plagued the industry as
long as I can remember, but fighters have been taken advantage of
financially and opportunities to compete for a title have not always been
awarded to legitimate contenders.
As you know, Madam Speaker, almost every other major sport in the
United States operates with a central body to establish appropriate
business standards and effective mechanisms of self-regulation. Not
boxing. Boxing exists in a world of alphabet soup organizations
whose rating methodologies are as ephemeral as the famous Ali
``mirage'' and promoters who are as untouchable as Ali was behind
the ``rope-a-dope.''
The purpose of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act is to
increase disclosure and prevent abuses in professional boxing,
specifically targeting conflicts of interest that arise for promoters.
H.R. 1832 limits contracts between boxers and promoters, ending the
coercive practice of requiring long contracts for fighters to obtain
particular bouts.
The bill also seeks to ensure that the manager is an independent
advocate of the boxer, not an agent serving the financial interest of the
promoter.
11
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117449126 Page: 12 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Entry ID: 6259555
On May 22, 2000, the House of Representatives of the United States moved
to concur in the Senate’s amendments to the bill H.R. 1832 to reform unfair and anti-
competitive practices in the professional boxing industry. While discussing such
last amendments made by the Senate, Representative Michael G. Oxley, from the
State of Ohio, proudly sponsored bill H.R. 1832 and spoke to all Members the
following:
The Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, which we consider today,
amends the Professional Boxing Safety Act to expand the consumer
protections and anti-bribery provisions. It prevents promoters,
sanctioning bodies, and networks from forcing boxers into coercive
contracts as a condition of participating in a mandatory bout. No
longer will promoters be able to abuse boxers and monopolize the sport
by requiring boxers to sign away all their rights in order to get a big
break or keep their ranking.
The bill also cleans up the arbitrary ranking systems of sanctioning
bodies. In the past, promoters and sanctioning bodies have been
able to rig the sport by placing favored boxers who have signed
away promotional rights in the top rankings. Boxers who do not
grant appropriate favors are arbitrarily dropped from the ranking
or prevented from moving up. This bill requires the sanctioning
bodies to publish written criteria for ranking boxers and requires
sanctioning bodies and promoters to disclose all revenues and other
compensation received in connection with the boxers to minimize
the opportunities for bribery and back-room dealing.
This new system will force sanctioning bodies to rank boxers based
on merit not subservience. It will mean new opportunities for honest
boxers who are trying to fight their way up the rankings and more
12
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117449126 Page: 13 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Entry ID: 6259555
integrity and respect for the sport since boxing fans will know that
championship matches are being fought by true champions.
Several matters can be established from the review of the above referenced
excerpts. First, there is a strong concern on part of both Senators and Representatives
as to the corruption that has permed professional boxing and its elements, which
include sanctioning bodies like Appellee WBO. The clear intent of the Act is to
professional boxing and provide states with more ample regulatory powers. In the
specific case of sanctioning bodies, the legislative intent was to enable a series of
The plain text of the Act and the legislative intent seek to limit the sanctioning
bodies’ powers by requiring, among other things, that they use an objective criteria
to rank professional boxers and to disclose their rankings and the reasons for any
change thereto. Said language and intent is wholly inconsistent with allowing the
WBO, and potentially promoters, managers and any other figure the Act seeks to
protect boxers from, to use an arbitration clause in its contracts deeming itself or a
For all legal and practical purposes, to allow mandatory arbitration under the
Muhammad Ali Act would render the Act inoperative as to the vindication of
13
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117449126 Page: 14 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Entry ID: 6259555
effectively by-pass the requirements of the Muhammad Ali Act. Furthermore, if the
District Court’s ruling is upheld, said arbitration clauses will require boxers to
party.
objective criteria for ranking boxers and make these disclosures only to leave them
Muhammad Ali Act and mandatory arbitration. Bercovitch v. Baldwin School, Inc.,
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 7th day of June of the year 2019.
14
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117449126 Page: 15 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Entry ID: 6259555
15
Case: 19-1068 Document: 00117449126 Page: 16 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Entry ID: 6259555
16