Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
Former WWE and Impact Wrestling Champion Jose Alberto Rodriguez Chucuan aka Alberto el Patron responded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on 11/5 in regard to the civil lawsuit he brought against MMA promotion Combate Global, LLC. In that lawsuit, Patron alleges that he is owed $250,000 for his December 2019 MMA fight against Tito Ortiz and that the promotion maintained control of his social media accounts even though his relationship with the company ended.
Combate's filed an 85-page motion to dismiss on 10/10, claiming that Patron's lawsuit featured a "lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim." Judge Cathy Seibel denied the motion on 10/12, citing that she would take up the discussion during a hearing on 11/12 after giving Patron's side a chance to respond to the motion by 11/5.
On 11/5, Patron's attorney Anthony M. Verna III, Esq. did just that, filing the following letter before the court, arguing that the case should not be dismissed:
"On July 8, 2021, Mr. Chuchuan filed this case against Combate Americas LLC and Combate Global Holdco, Inc. (combined “Combate”) for breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and conversion. This resulted from work that Mr. Chucuan performed for Combate in several roles at Combate; one role was as a spokesperson, and the other role was as a sanctioned mixed martial arts fighter. The central factual issue in this case is whether Mr Chuchuan received full payment for the services he performed for Defendants under a series of agreements. Three of Mr. Chuchuan’s claims flow from the alleged non-payment of $250,000, which Defendants deny and seek the court’s permission to file a motion to dismiss move to dismiss. Permission should be denied because the Complaint alleges sufficient facts to sustain the claim of non-payment, which must be accepted as true at this stage and the Defendants should be required to file an Answer.
Response to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570,127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868, 884 (2009).
In particular, the claimant must allege well-pleaded factual matter and more than “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” to state a claim plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, (citing Twombly, at 555). Under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b) the Court is to accept as true all facts in the Complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Snyder & Assoc. Acquisitions LLC v. United States, 859 F. 3d 1159, 1155 n.1 (9th Cir. 2017) Case 7:21-cv-05907-CS Document 13 Filed 11/05/21 Page 1 of 3 rfo2
Here, the Complaint properly alleges facts that support a breach of contract action under New York law, Harsco Corp. v. Segui, 91 F.3d 337, 348 (2d Cir.1996).
(1) the existence of a contract between the parties, The Complaint describes the five contracts entered into with the Defendants (Pars. 4, 19,-22, 23-30, 31- 32, 33-34, 35-40) and attached each, so that there can be no doubt as to the terms at issue. Defendants do not dispute the fact of these contracts.
(2) the material performance of their contractual obligations, The Complaint describes the performance provided by Plaintiff (Pars. 40-50), which the Defendant again does not dispute.
(3) the other party to the contract failed to materially perform their commitments under the contract, The Complaint sufficiently alleges the Defendants’ failure to perform by non-payment of the amount agreed-to in the contract . (Pars. 40-50)
and (4) damages resulting from the other party not upholding their obligations under the contract. The Complaint sufficiently alleges that the Plaintiffs were damaged in the amount of $250,000 (Pars. 40, 55, 62, A)
The Defendants challenge this assertion as a matter of fact, but this is disputed and what Plainitffs say in the Complaint must be accepted as true and the case must proceed. Moreover, the Defendants presented matters outside of the pleadings in the form of the declaration of Gregory Bloom and the Affidavit of Lawrence Kahm. These should be excluded under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(d) because they convert a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56. Under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(d) and 56(d) the Plaintiff must be given an opportunity to develop facts to contradict Defendants’ factual assertions. At this point, Mr. Chucuan does not have sufficient facts upon which to oppose the Defendants’ asserted “facts” and must be given an opportunity to take discovery. This is also important for the other theories alleged in the complaint of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment because the issue of whether the “Term Sheet” and its “Amendment” became actual contracts requires discovery as to entry, the circumstances surrounding execution, the parties expectations etc. It appears that Defendants contest that the “Term Sheet” and “Amendment” rose to the level of a contract. The bottom line here, is whether the Complaint states sufficient facts as to Defendants’ non-payment of a debt owed to the Plaintiffs. It does and the Defendants’ purported motion to dismiss fails."
In the aforementioned, which was filed this past July, Patron alleges he signed an agreement with the company in September 2016 to become a “co-spokesman, color commentator, roving reporter, pre-fight and post-fight interviewer, on-camera personality, liaison for fighter relations and brand ambassador" for Combate Americas LLC, as the company was then known.
The lawsuit noted, "The Agreement stated that compensation for Plaintiff Jose Alberto Rodriguez Chucuan, Inc. was for two-hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) for the first year, to be paid monthly ($20,833.34 per month). If Mr. Rodriguez appeared as an on-camera, ringside commentator for televised or pay-per-view events, then Plaintiff Jose Alberto Rodriguez Chucuan, Inc. received another ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per event."
The two sides extended their deal for eight additional months, then agreed to extend for another two years beyond the initial term, one year at a time with the lawsuit noting, "The Agreement and the Amendment would total $883,333.36 ($83,333.36 for the first four months, $200,000 for the final eight months of the first term, then $600,000 for the final two years)." The lawsuit states that Patron "performed all duties and services; and Defendants did not complain about the quality of those duties and services."
The lawsuit states that the agreement was terminated in July 2017 but two months later, Combate made an offer for him to fight Tito Ortiz with the agreement being he'd be paid $500,000 to promote the fight and another $250,000 to fight. Alberto fought (and lost) to Ortiz and alleges the company has not paid him the $250,000 payday for the actual fight and have ignored invoices for the payment.
As part of the promotion for the fight, Patron alleges he gave Combate access to his social media accounts and "now that the parties have no working relationship, the Defendants refuse to answer questions about the social media accounts."
Patron is suing for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion (for not turning over the social media accounts) seeking:
*compensatory damages in the amount of $250,000.00 for Defendant’s breach of contract, or quantum meruit or unjust enrichment
*Interest of at least $26,250.00 due and owing from and after December 31, 2019 calculated as follows through April 15, 2021, and as determined by the Court for the days following April 15, 2021 up to the date judgment is rendered: 7% interest of $26,250.
*For an award of Plaintiffs’ costs and reasonable attorney’s fees;
*To return control of all social media accounts to Plaintiffs.
*For such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
Patron is not asking for a jury trial.
Combate's motion to dismiss was their first response to the lawsuit. The promotion has regular live cards on Paramount+.
Patron, meanwhile, is slated to stand criminal trial this December in San Antonio in an unrelated case.
PWInsider.com will update as needed on the legal proceedings.
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
