Brandon Vera and Pablo Garza File Third Class Action Suit on Christmas Eve

bloodyelbow.com - Dec 24 2014, 6:30p By John S. Nash



Just in time for Christmas, a third antitrust class action complaint was filed with Brandon Vera and Pablo Garza named as the plaintiffs.

Another antitrust suit has been filed in the California Northern District Court against Zuffa, LLC, the majority owner of the UFC: 5:14-cv-05621 Vera et al v. Zuffa, LLC. The plaintiffs this time are listed as former UFC fighters Pablo Garza and Brandon Vera. The complaint has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins.

Vera was at one time a serious contender for a UFC title. He began his career 4-0, but then went through a contentious negotiation for his next contract. He would eventually resign, but not before dropping his manager at the time, Mark Dion, who would win damages against Vera in a civil suit. The judge in that case criticized some of the negotiating tactics employed by Zuffa.

Vera would never recapture his earlier success in the UFC, ending his UFC career with an 8-7-1 record overall. Vera was released following a loss to Ben Rothwell at UFC 164 on August 31, 2013, He signed with the Singapore-based One FC earlier this year, and made his promotional debut for them on December 5th of this month, were he defeated Igor Subora. In the buildup to that match Vera criticized the UFC's handling of his release:

"It wasn't handled the way it should be," said Vera, who had been with the organization for nine years.
"I was a loyal employee, never did anything incorrectly. Never beat up my wife. Never had a DUI. The respect wasn't there."

Garzo made his UFC debut on December 4, 2010 at The Ultimate Fighter 12 Finale, where he defeated Fredson Paixão via flying knee. He would fight six times for the promotion, going 3-3. He was released following a loss to Diego Brandã at the UFC's April 6, 2013 event in Stockholm, Sweden. Garza hasn't fought since. He was recently in the news with a Facebook post where he wrote that

"Back in 2012 all ufc fighters were asked to sign a petition saying that the UFC isnt a monopoly and that fighter are treated fairly. I was one of the few who chose not to sign it."

This is the third confirmed complaint that has been filed against the UFC. The first, Le et al v Zuffa, LLC, was filed on December 16th and assigned to Judge Edward J, Davila. Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, and Jon Fitch were the named plaintiffs in that complaint.  On December 22nd a second complaint was filed, Vazquez et al v. Zuffa, LLC and assigned to Judge Paul Singh Grewel. Luis Javier Vaquez and Dennis Lloyd Hallman were named as the plaintiffs. All three complaints have been antitrust class action suits. All of the fighters have also  been represented by legal counsel from the Joseph Saveri Law Firm, inc, Warrner Angle Hallam Jackson & Formanek PLC, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, and the Law Office of Frederick S.Schwartz.

Bloody Elbow has reached out to the plaintiff's counsel to ask if any other complaints had been filed that had not been reported yet and if we should expect  any more in the future. We are still waiting for a reply and will provide an update as it becomes available.

Bloody Elbow will continue to keep you as up to speed as possible, but you can read plenty of our reporting to this point by reading our Story Stream.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/12/24/7448055/brandon-vera-and-pablo-garza-file-third-class-action-suit-on

Did anyone notice that pdf eddie posted had pics that were posted here?

I wonder how more will file. Unfortunately for them, the zombies and I'm sure the media will consider them bitter ex-employees.

hahahahaahahaha

I dont know why Vera is filling a lawsuit because UFC treated him pretty fucking well considering how badly he performed! he was kept by the UFC a lot longer than most fighters.

Rocksoldier84 wrote:I wonder how more will file. Unfortunately for them, the zombies and I'm sure the media will consider them bitter ex-employees.

I am sure they will any fighter who complains about the ufc is a disgruntled ex employee . The worst thing it doesn't matter who it is it can be a under card guy or a former champion .

Vera now joining in. Good to see.

patiently waiting for Randy Couture & Ken Shamrock to jump the bandwagon

westcott123 wrote:

Rocksoldier84 wrote:I wonder how more will file. Unfortunately for them, the zombies and I'm sure the media will consider them bitter ex-employees.

I am sure they will any fighter who complains about the ufc is a disgruntled ex employee . The worst thing it doesn't matter who it is it can be a under card guy or a former champion .

They can think that all they want, but that is categorically false. Fighters are not 'employees'. This is an instance of fighters suing a former promoter which they had worked with (or current one, in the case of Le).

RussianTopTeam wrote:patiently waiting for Randy Couture & Ken Shamrock to jump the bandwagon

I believe Ken Shamrock settled the beef with UFC. He didnt want to be written out of history

On Friday, Zuffa lawyers have filed a motion to transfer the venue of the Antitrust lawsuit in the Northern District of California in San Jose to Nevada where the Zuffa headquarters are located. The hearing date is set for May 7th although Zuffa requests to advance the date to March 26th.


In its filing, Zuffa anticipated that the discovery process will be “contentious” as it appears that the parties already dispute a briefing schedule to file pleadings. Zuffa also cites to subpoenas issued to third-parties for this case which Zuffa indicates violates the federal rules. Zuffa was granted an extension to address the three complaints filed by the plaintiffs.

Instead of an Answer to the Complaint, it has filed a Motion to Transfer Venue.



Payout Perspective:

We had predicted this possibility back in December when the Complaint was filed in San Jose. Zuffa is based in Nevada and has a viable argument under the federal rules of civil procedure that it should be able to defend its lawsuit in its state. Zuffa argues that plaintiffs signed UFC contracts with the proviso that any legal dispute is filed in Nevada. Essentially, they agreed to the “forum selection” as part of a clause in their contract. It also argues that for convenience purposes the lawsuit should be transferred since most witnesses are located in Nevada.




http://mmapayout.com/2015/02/ufc-files-motion-to-transfer-antitrust-lawsuit-to-nevada/

TeamJohnPerretti wrote:On Friday, Zuffa  lawyers have filed a motion to transfer the venue of the Antitrust lawsuit in the Northern District of California in San Jose to Nevada where the Zuffa headquarters are located.  The hearing date is set for May 7th although Zuffa requests to advance the date to March 26th.


In its filing, Zuffa anticipated that the discovery process will be “contentious” as it appears that the parties already dispute a briefing schedule to file pleadings.  Zuffa also cites to subpoenas issued to third-parties for this case which Zuffa indicates violates the federal rules. Zuffa was granted an extension to address the three complaints filed by the plaintiffs.

Instead of an Answer to the Complaint, it has filed a Motion to Transfer Venue.



Payout Perspective:

We had predicted this possibility back in December when the Complaint was filed in San Jose.  Zuffa is based in Nevada and has a viable argument under the federal rules of civil procedure that it should be able to defend its lawsuit in its state.  Zuffa argues that plaintiffs signed UFC contracts with the proviso that any legal dispute is filed in Nevada.  Essentially, they agreed to the “forum selection” as part of a clause in their contract.  It also argues that for convenience purposes the lawsuit should be transferred since most witnesses are located in Nevada.




http://mmapayout.com/2015/02/ufc-files-motion-to-transfer-antitrust-lawsuit-to-nevada/

Not surprised Zuffa wants this in Nevada.

CDF47 wrote:

TeamJohnPerretti wrote:On Friday, Zuffa  lawyers have filed a motion to transfer the venue of the Antitrust lawsuit in the Northern District of California in San Jose to Nevada where the Zuffa headquarters are located.  The hearing date is set for May 7th although Zuffa requests to advance the date to March 26th.


In its filing, Zuffa anticipated that the discovery process will be “contentious” as it appears that the parties already dispute a briefing schedule to file pleadings.  Zuffa also cites to subpoenas issued to third-parties for this case which Zuffa indicates violates the federal rules. Zuffa was granted an extension to address the three complaints filed by the plaintiffs.

Instead of an Answer to the Complaint, it has filed a Motion to Transfer Venue.



Payout Perspective:

We had predicted this possibility back in December when the Complaint was filed in San Jose.  Zuffa is based in Nevada and has a viable argument under the federal rules of civil procedure that it should be able to defend its lawsuit in its state.  Zuffa argues that plaintiffs signed UFC contracts with the proviso that any legal dispute is filed in Nevada.  Essentially, they agreed to the “forum selection” as part of a clause in their contract.  It also argues that for convenience purposes the lawsuit should be transferred since most witnesses are located in Nevada.




http://mmapayout.com/2015/02/ufc-files-motion-to-transfer-antitrust-lawsuit-to-nevada/

Not surprised Zuffa wants this in Nevada.

of course because nevada would most likely take the ufc side of things since the nsac gets a cut from zuffa . i know i don't have any proof but come one its obvious they are .