HARRISBURG – A New Jersey man who launched legal action against the Pennsylvania State Athletic Commission and its personnel – alleging they conspired against him to prevent him from holding a professional boxing card in Harrisburg – may have his case dismissed, according to a federal magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Edward Bissau Mendy of Kinnelson, N.J. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on July 6 versus the Pennsylvania State Athletic Commission, its executive director Gregory Sirb, its legal counsel Martha Brown and unknown John Doe employees 1-10, all of Pennsylvania.
“Clash in the Burg’ is the new boxing series promoted by plaintiff Mendy and his company Lion Heart Boxing Productions, Ltd. in association with Travel Champs. The mission and vision of Mendy was to have Clash in the Burg enter the vibrant Pennsylvania boxing and sports entertainment market as a monthly live professional boxing series to be held on the first Thursday of the month at various venues in the Harrisburg-Hershey area of Pennsylvania, commencing with the Genesis event on July 6, 2023 at the Forum Auditorium in Harrisburg, PA. To frustrate the stated intent Sirb, Brown and others they were acting in concert with first tried to limit Mendy’s license by taking the unusual step of converting a license issued last year into a provisional one, and restricting to scheduling one event at a time,” the suit stated.
“The Genesis episode of Clash in the Burg is supposed to be held July 6, 2023, at the beautiful and historic Forum Auditorium in Harrisburg, PA but was canceled on July 5, 2023, without good cause. The was supposed to feature a mouth-watering main clash between the 6’6’ Latin heavyweight sensation and heavyweight prospect Martin Paredes (6-0) and against the dream killer Jamal Wood (29-59-12) as well as other bouts. Tickets were reasonably priced at $100 for Ringside (Level 100) seats, $60 for Reserved (Level 200) seating and $40 for General Admission (Level 300) and could be purchased at the venue, online at www.universe.com and at all Ticketmaster locations.”
The suit continued that defendants Sirb, Brown and Does 1-10 conspired with each other and other parties and caused the event to be cancelled, allegedly through numerous underhanded business tactics outlined in the complaint.
“The cancellation was done in part because of Sirb’s personal vendetta against Mendy, evidenced by his incessant spread of misinformation about Mendy as well as his constant propagation of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about Mendy, Mendy’s companies and Mendy’s events, including the cancelled Clash in the Burg Genesis. Sirb’s history with Mendy spanned decades and despite his seeming attempts to be professional, in private communication with Mendy, he was generally intimidating,” the suit said.
“As a result of Sirb’s actions, not only has the Clash in the Burg series been frustrated, but also Mendy has lost several business opportunities in the past, including the opportunity to promote events in at least two casinos. Further, many event requests presented to Sirb by Mendy have been denied in contravention of standard PSAC practices, affecting both his credibility and relationships with broadcast and venue partners, as well as fighters.”
On Jan. 5, U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the defendants in the suit had not been served, or risk dismissal of the case.
“On July 6, 2023, plaintiff Edward Bissau Mendy began this action by filing a complaint. He has paid the filing fee. By an order dated July 7, 2023, we reminded Mendy that he must serve the defendants in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, or he must obtain waivers of service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) from the defendants. And we ordered that, within 90 days of the date Mendy filed the complaint, he shall serve the summons and the complaint on the defendants, or he shall obtain waivers of service from the defendants. We also ordered that Mendy shall file a return of service within 90 days of the date he filed the complaint. Mendy has not, however, filed a return of service reflecting that he has served the defendants,” Schwab said.
“Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part: ‘If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. More than 90 days have passed since Mendy filed his complaint, and because he has not filed a return of service, it appears that he has not served the defendants. It is ordered that, on or before Feb. 5, 2024, Mendy shall show cause, if there is any, why this action should not be dismissed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). If Mendy does not show cause within this time, we will recommend that this action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m).”
UPDATE
With the plaintiff not responding to Schwab’s Jan. 5 order, the judge issued a report and recommendation on March 26, advising that the case be dismissed.
“Because more than 90 days passed since Mendy filed his complaint and because he has not filed a return of service, we ordered Mendy to show cause, if there is any, on or before Feb. 5, 2024, why this action should not be dismissed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). We warned Mendy that if he does not show cause, we would recommend that this action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m). Mendy has not responded to the show cause order. Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the court dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m),” Schwab stated.
Objections to the report and recommendation are open until April 12, according to Schwab.
For counts of violating 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, libel and slander, conspiracy to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt and cancel the event, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in an amount as will be proven at trial.
The plaintiff is representing himself in this matter.
The defendants have not yet obtained legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:23-cv-01128
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com