Pacquiao v. Mayweather
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29804
| D. Nev. | 2011Background
- Pacquiao sues Mayweather, de la Hoya, Schaefer, and related parties for defamation per se.
- Parties negotiated a late-2009 Las Vegas boxing match, but talks broke down.
- Pacquiao alleges defendants publicly claimed he used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs).
- Plaintiff filed federal defamation complaint on December 30, 2009; amended March 17, 2010.
- Motions to dismiss were filed by de la Hoya, Schaefer, and Mayweather Promotions.
- Court rejects motions, finds alleged statements actionable, malice pleaded, and conspiracy allegations viable within defamation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements about PEDs are defamatory per se | Pacquiao alleges statements assert objective false facts. | Movants contend statements are non-defamatory opinions or non-actionable. | Statements are actionable defamation per se. |
| Whether Pacquiao pleads actual malice as a public figure | Pacquiao pleads malice by ill-will and knowledge of falsity. | Defendants argue malice not adequately pled given uncertainty of PEDs. | Malice adequately pled; public figure standard satisfied. |
| Whether conspiracy allegations are properly pled | Conspiracy to defame is alleged within defamation claim to support malice. | Conspiracy must be pled with specificity as a separate claim. | Allegations sufficient within defamation claim; not stricken. |
| Whether Mayweather Promotions is liable for statements by its President | Promoter liable for actions of its agent within scope of duties. | Statements were not authorized communications of Mayweather Promotions. | Promoter liable; statements within scope of duties; motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wynn v. Smith, 16 P.3d 424 (Nev. 2001) (actual malice standard for public figures)
- Flowers v. Carville, 310 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2002) (pleading malice may be general for public figures)
- Pegasus v. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 57 P.3d 82 (Nev. 2002) (distinguishes fact from opinion in defamation)
- Branda v. Sanford, 637 P.2d 1223 (Nev. 1981) (defamation—fact vs. opinion; context matters)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (pleading must be plausible, not merely possible)
- Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (S. Ct. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Posadas v. City of Reno, 851 P.2d 438 (Nev. 1993) (actual malice standard for public figures in Nevada)
- Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) (pleading standards post-Iqbal)
- Coastal Abstract Serv., Inc. v. First American Title Ins. Co., 173 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999) (employer liability for employee torts; agent framework)