HBO, Boxers Ask for Dismissal of Multiple Fraud Suits

and HBO don't allege any cognizable injury to a legally protected right or interest, Mayweather said a motion (in Pacer) to dismiss Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The plaintiffs' PPV and ticket purchases "at most gave them a right to see (or show) a fight at a specific time and place, which all admittedly received," defendants Pacquiao and HBO, said in a similar but separate motion (in Pacer) for a dismissal order Tuesday. All claims of fraud under various state statutes regarding nondisclosure of an existing Pacquiao injury lack an actionable omission or misrepresentation, Pacquiao/HBO said. They said the plaintiffs never showed a causal link between their purported harm and the alleged misrepresentations. Fifteen separate class-action complaints were brought against the boxers and HBO by PPV customers in 12 states and by Puerto Rico, PPV commercial entities nationally and live attendees of the event. Defendants also include boxing promotion company Top Rank, two of its corporate officers and a Pacquiao business manager. The Mayweather motion said the claims are made up of "conclusory allegation and unsupported inferences" and haven't pleaded facts with specificity to meet the pleading requirements of fraud-based claims. It said arguments of false advertising violations fail since the plaintiffs aren't in the "zone of interests" of the Lanham Act (which governs unfair competition) and Mayweather's statements are non-actionable and protected by the First Amendment. "Both the Pacquiao and Mayweather defendants’ motions to dismiss miss the central point that consumers were induced to purchase the PPV based on facts that were known to the Defendants well before the fight but were purposely withheld from the public in order to drive PPV sales to record levels," lead plaintiffs' counsel Hart Robinovitch of Zimmerman Reed emailed us Wednesday. "Mr. Pacquiao was obligated to disclose his shoulder injury on the pre-fight medical questionnaire but answered it untruthfully under penalty of perjury. Reasonable consumers would have wanted to know this important fact before making the decision to part with $100 to see the fight. Numerous commentators voiced outrage following the fight, supporting plaintiffs’ position that consumers buying the fight were duped. Plaintiffs in the Pacquiao litigation are quite confident that they will be able to demonstrate that the arguments Defendants present in their motions to dismiss are misplaced and that the motions will be denied."