Judge Denies Eddie Alvarez Injunction To Sign With The UFC
Both sides appeared in NY court on Fri 25th January,as Alvarez sought a preliminary injunction against Bellator, so that he may seek a contract with Zuffa.
Judge Jose L. Linares. offered his ruling , refuting Alvarez’ defense teams claim by telling them they failed to properly demonstrate that the former champ would be irreparably harmed if he was unable to sign with the UFC.
The documents were released by the U.S. District Court. "As to the first prong, the Court is not satisfied that Alvarez has demonstrated areasonable probability of success on the merits by virtue of Bellator’s purported failure to matchZuffa’s offer. The crux of Alvarez’s argument is that Bellator’s failure to provide an identicallymatching contract amounts to a failure to match. This argument, however, is untenable. Obviously, in any contract that Bellator would match, it would have to change certain words.For example, it would have to substitute its name for that of Zuffa. If, as Alvarez claims,Bellator’s substituting its name for that of Zuffa amounts to a failure to match, Bellator would never be able to match the terms of any contract, and thus its right of first refusal would amount to no right at all. 1See, e.g., Travelers Indem. Co. v. Damman & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 238, 255(3d Cir. 2010) (“We must also endeavor to avoid ignoring certain words or reading the contractin such a way as to make any words ‘meaningless.’”). This Court must apply a common-sense interpretation to the word “match.” See id. Applying this approach, the Court declines to hold that in order to “match” the Zuffa contract, Bellator had to include identical words in its matching offer. In this case, there is no illegal restraint that Bellator is seeking to impose on Alvarez, noris Alvarez precluded from competing professionally absent a grant of his application for apreliminary injunction. It is speculative to suggest, as Alvarez does, that an inability to competein the April 27 event will result in irreparable harm in the form of a lost opportunity to obtainnotoriety, endorsements, and a wider exposure to viewers. Alvarez’s argument requires thisCourt to make speculative assumptions about what might or might not happen as a result of hisparticipation in the April 27 event. Based on the record before it, the Court cannot make such aassumptions."