Ultimate Fighting Championship | provided
PHILADELPHIA – A judgment in excess of $12,000 was found in favor of a promotional company who filed a lawsuit against a Philadelphia pub, for allegedly defaulting on paying the costs associated with exhibiting an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) pay-per-view broadcast.
According to a Jan. 18 stipulation, a judgment of $12,715.91 was reached in favor of the case plaintiff, Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., and levied against Thomas Thornton, Randy Franklin and Franklin Brothers 111, Inc. Per the legal terms, the first payment of $715.91 was due by Jan. 25, and subsequent monthly payments of $500 were due on the 25th of each following month until the entire amount was paid off by a two-year time limit of Jan. 25, 2021.
In turn, the plaintiff is barred from pursuing execution proceedings unless the defendants fall more than 30 days delinquent in their payment arrangement, in which case it may enforce collection of the full debt due.
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. of Feasterville first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on March 28 versus Thornton, Franklin and Franklin Brothers 111, Inc., all of Philadelphia.
(As of Jan. 24, Thornton is currently under consideration to be dismissed as a defendant.)
The suit initially stated that the parties entered into an agreement for J.D. McGillicuddy’s, an Irish pub in the Manayunk section of Philadelphia, to exhibit the “UFC 205: Alvarez VS. McGregor” event on Nov. 12, 2016.
In exchange for televising the event to the pub through a closed-circuit broadcast, J.D. McGillicuddy’s was to pay the plaintiff the principal sum of $12,500, with $1,500 to be received on or before Feb. 15, 2017, and $1,000 due on the 15th of each subsequent month starting March 15, 2017, until paid in full.”
As of the date of the complaint and despite repeated demand in the ensuing months, the plaintiff said the defendants have paid it only $1,000, and thus have defaulted on the remaining costs of $11,500.
“Notwithstanding the due demand for payment, defendants wrongfully refused and/or failed to pay the outstanding amounts. Such wrongful refusal and/or failure to pay the outstanding amounts constitutes a material breach and wrongful repudiation of the settlement agreement. Plaintiff duly performed all of its obligations under the above described agreement, the settlement agreement. Due to defendants’ material breach and wrongful repudiation of the settlement agreement, plaintiff is owed and has sustained damages in the approximate amount of $11,500, plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees,” the suit said.
According to a response and new matter filed on July 12, only defendant Randy Franklin signed the settlement agreement and, after reasonable investigation, found they “are without information as to whether or not plaintiff owned the distribution rights to the broadcast.”
Further, the new matter stated the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state, in whole or in part, a cause of action against the defendants upon which relief can be granted, that the plaintiff’s alleged cause of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations and that defendant Thornton had no involvement whatsoever in the business or conduct at issue in the instant litigation.
For a count of breach of contract, the plaintiff had initially been seeking damages, jointly and severally, of $11,500, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, and such other and further relief to which they may be justly entitled.
The plaintiff is represented by Ryan R. Janis of Jekielek & Janis, in Feasterville.
The defendants are represented by John J. McCreesh IV of McCreesh McCreesh & Cannon, in Upper Darby.
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 180303397
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at email@example.com