56 F. Supp. 3d 507
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- WOB and Don King entered an Agreement In Principle on January 28, 2014, to promote a rematch between Guillermo Jones and Denis Lebedev.
- Jones tested positive for furosemide on April 25, 2014, leading to cancellation of the bout and WOB's claim that King failed to cause Jones to participate.
- The Agreement incorporated WBA rules, which disqualify a boxer who tests positive for banned substances for at least six months.
- WBA later suspended Jones and Lebedev’s rematch proceeded only with Lebedev as champion after Jones’s positive test was confirmed.
- WOB filed suit on May 28, 2014 seeking liability on breach, dismissal of King’s counterclaims, and relief regarding escrow funds; summary judgment sought on contract liability.
- The court held that King breached the contract, rejected the impossibility defense, dismissed King’s counterclaims, and reserved judgment on escrow funds for damages briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether King breached the contract by failing to cause Jones to participate | Hrunov argues King had an unconditional obligation to cause Jones to participate. | King contends his duty was limited to actions within his control; Jones’s drug use was outside his control. | King breached; Jones’s disqualification made participation impossible. |
| Whether impossibility excuses King's breach | Impossibility does not apply; Jones’s prior doping creates foreseeability and risk. | Jones’s drug ingestion was an unanticipated event that should excuse performance. | Impossibility defense rejected; foreseeable risk not unanticipated. |
| Whether Lebedev's withdrawal or Jones's positive test breached the Agreement or dissolved it | Jones’s positive test terminated the contract; Lebedev’s withdrawal was justified post-discovery. | Lebedev’s withdrawal could constitute breach or dissolution independent of Jones’s test. | Lebedev’s withdrawal did not excuse King; contract already breached by King's failure to perform. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kel Kim, Corp. v. Central Mkts., Inc., 70 N.Y.2d 900 (N.Y. 1987) (impossibility defense requires unanticipated, guardable risks)
- Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (U.S. 1996) (foreseeability and contract-based risk allocation considerations)
- Topps Co. v. Cadbury, 526 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2008) (interpretation of 'cause to participate' under New York law)
- This Is Me, Inc. v. Taylor, 157 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 1998) (contract interpretation and performance standards under New York law)
- Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Reg'l Transp. Auth., 743 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standard and evidence assessment)