Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
Attorneys for Ring of Honor star Scott “Colt Cabana” Colton filed a response to former WWE Champion Phil “CM Punk” Brooks’ counter-suit against Colton Wednesday 6/26 in the Circuit Court of Cook County in Illinois, seeking the counter-suit’s dismissal.
As one might imagine, Colton’s motion requesting the counter-suit be tossed takes issue with just about everything Brooks alleged in his lawsuit.
In regard to Brooks’ claim that he and Colton jointly hired The Loeb Firm to represent them in the Dr. Chris Amann lawsuit, Colton claims Brooks, “simply alleges that the parties jointly retained the Loeb Firm to represent them in the Amann Lawsuit and concludes, without any factual support whatsoever, that Colton "retained a benefit in the form of high-quality, professional legal services provided by the Loeb Firm...". Brooks' Counterclaim fails to describe a single act or service done or performed for or on behalf of Colton by the Loeb Firm in the Amann Lawsuit that Brooks purportedly paid for, let alone the reasonable value of same.”
Colton also claims that it wasn’t until he was dropped as a Loeb Firm client and hired his own counsel that Dr. Amann’s claim of defamation against Colton was dropped, insinuating that Loeb hadn’t been able to accomplish that while representing Colton.
In regard to Brooks’ claims that two years after the end of the Amann case that Colton has not paid Brooks back for his share of the $1,210,00 legal bill, Colton responded that Brooks, while testifying in the Dr. Amann trial, stated he told Colton that “I would make sure I took care of everything, because it was unfair that he's being lumped in and attacked. So I told him I would take care of it..." and that he would make sure that Colton was “100% covered" with respect to” Colton's attorney's fees. Colton’s side are arguing that testimony proves Colton was never expected to pay Brooks back.
Colton’s attorneys stated that Brooks suddenly demanded payment for half of what he had spent on legal bills thus far in the previously disclosed April 2016 email: “To date I have spent $513,736 dollars on this Amman lawsuit. My outstanding current bill is at least 300k. Half of all this is yours. Divide the 513,736 by 2 and that is what you owe me and what I expect you to pay me. Starting now I will no longer be paying your bills. You are on your own. Whatever my bill is currently, will be cut in half, and half will be yours. If you choose to make this all ugly, that's fine too. I hope you won't, but I gave up on you doing what is right a long time ago.”
As reported previously, Colton claimed he intended to hire his own counsel but after an email exchange with the Loeb Firm, “Colton agreed to permit the Loeb Firm to continue to act as his counsel therein in consideration of Brooks unequivocal agreement that Brooks would not sue Colton for any legal fees and costs incurred in the Amann Lawsuit.”
Colton’s side also alleges that Brooks didn’t want Colton to get his own counsel because Brooks“...believed and was concerned that Colton would potentially make misrepresentations and false statements to benefit himself and harm Brooks with respect to the Amann Lawsuit.”
The Loeb Firm later dropped Colton as a client and when they went to trial in the Amann case, Brooks and Colton were represented by separate attorneys, so Colton’s claim is interesting since he could have, while testifying, indeed chosen to throw Brooks under the bus, but that obviously did not happen.
Colton’s motion also argued that emails between Brooks and Colton “in May and June of 2016, establish an express agreement among the parties concerning the same subject raised in Brooks' Counterclaim and, in any event, even if a contract implied in law ever previously existed among the parties that would otherwise impose any liability on Colton for any legal costs or fees paid by Brooks in the defense of the Amann Lawsuit (none did), these same emails also establish that Brooks released Colton from such liability.”
Colton claims that Brooks agreed to pay all of the legal bills and had no issue doing so until asking Colton to cover a legal payment “Until I got paid when I fought.” It appears Colton turned down the request to make the payment - which may be where the schism between the two occurred.
Colton’s motion argued, “….if Brooks expected that Colton was to be responsible for any of the Loeb Firm's bills in the Amann Lawsuit, why on earth would Brooks have added the words “until I got paid when I fought” to Brooks' aforesaid request? Is Brooks seriously suggesting to this Court that he was going to repay Colton after being paid to fight and then demand that Colton repay Brooks what Brooks had just repaid Colton? Ridiculous. “
Colton claimed in the 6/26 motion that he has been asked to pay half the Loeb Firm legal bill, but was never asked to contribute “except for the email Colton received from Brooks in late April of 2016 and a related email from the Loeb Firm to Colton dated May 26, 2016, in which Colton was asked by the Loeb Firm if Colton "could contribute anything to the legal fees" in the Amann Lawsuit, Colton has never been asked to pay any of the Loeb Firm's statements for costs or legal services in the Amman Lawsuit; and the first and only notice Colton ever received from Brooks, or from any of Brooks' representatives, demanding reimbursement for any costs or legal fees paid by Brooks in connection with Colton's legal representation and/or Brooks' legal representation in the Amann Lawsuit was in Brooks' Counterclaim.”
*The motion also argued that Brooks paid the legal bill as a “friendly act” and that by Illinois law, it is “far too late” for the courts to get involved and make one side pay the other – pointing out that it was a year after Colton sued Brooks and after Colton’s third lawsuit filing (his second, amended version of the lawsuit) that Brooks opted to pursue the money he is allegedly owed.
Note from Mike: There’s a pretty simple explanation to the above. Brooks was likely tired of being sued and opted to fight fire with fire.
Colton’s motion claimed, “the timing of Brooks' meritless Counterclaim makes it somewhat obvious that Brooks, who is very wealthy and can afford to defend against Colton's claims, came up with his claim against Colton, who is not so wealthy, merely as a means to possibly extort an early settlement of this lawsuit.”
Colton is claiming that Brooks’ counterclaim alleging they had a contract that would see Colton pay Brooks back half of the legal expenses “law fails as a matter of law” and requests Brooks’ lawsuit be dismissed.
As noted, PWInsider.com is currently examining hundreds of pages of legal filings related to the case and will have further updates in the days to come.
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!
Bang On Casino
