Motion To Continue Trial Date

Case 2:15-cv-03378-JFW-MRW Document 125 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:2377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-4590
GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN

& MACHTINGER LLP
BERTRAM FIELDS (SBN 024199)

BFields@ggfirm.com
RICARDO P. CESTERO (SBN 203230)
RCestero@GreenbergGlusker.com
JAMES R. MOLEN (SBN 260269)
JMolen@GreenbergGlusker.com
GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS
CLAMAN & MACHTINGER LLP
Telephone: 310.553.3610
Fax: 310.553.0687
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Golden Boy Promotions, LLC, Golden Boy
Promotions, Inc. and Bernard Hopkins
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
14
GOLDEN BOY PROMOTIONS, LLC,

GOLDEN BOY PROMOTIONS, INC.
and BERNARD HOPKINS,
15
16
17
18
19
20
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALAN HAYMON, ALAN HAYMON
DEVELOPMENT, INC., HAYMON
HOLDINGS, LLC, HAYMON
SPORTS, LLC, HAYMON BOXING
MANAGEMENT, and HAYMON
BOXING LLC,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03378 JFW (MRWx)

Assigned to Hon. John F. Walter
UNOPPOSED NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION TO
CONTINUE TRIAL DATE;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
Date:
Time:
Place:
August 29, 2016

1:30 p.m.
Courtroom 16
Defendants.
21
Complaint Filed: May 5, 2015

SAC Filed: January 20, 2016
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17896-00617/2649479.1
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE


& MACHTINGER LLP
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 29, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard in Courtroom 16 of the above-entitled Court,
located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Plaintiffs Golden Boy
Promotions LLC, Golden Boy Promotions, Inc., and Bernard Hopkins (Plaintiffs)
will and hereby do move for an order continuing the trial in this matter from its
currently scheduled date of January 31, 2017 to March 13, 2017, or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be set for trial.
This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached
10
Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the concurrently filed Declarations of
11
Bertram Fields and James Molen, the other files, records, pleadings and papers in
12
this action, including any reply papers that may be filed in connection herewith, and
13
on such further oral or documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the
14
hearing on this matter.
15
This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-
16
3, which took place between July 20 and July 27, 2017. At the conclusion of the
17
parties conference, Defendants advised Plaintiffs that they do not oppose the relief
18
sought by this motion, so long as trial is scheduled sufficiently in advance of April
19
17, 2017 as to be completed by this date.
20
21
DATED: July 29, 2016

22
23
By: /s/ Bertram Fields

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Golden Boy
Promotions LLC and Bernard Hopkins
24
25
26
27
28
17896-00617/2649479.1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES


& MACHTINGER LLP
I.
INTRODUCTION
By this motion, Plaintiffs Golden Boy Promotions LLC, Golden Boy
Promotions, Inc., and Bernard Hopkins (Plaintiffs) seek an order continuing the
trial in this matter from its currently scheduled date of January 31, 2017 to March
13, 2017, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be set for trial.
Good cause exists for the requested continuance because lead trial counsel
for Plaintiffs, Bertram Fields, is committed to teaching a course at Stanford Law
10
School during winter quarter 2017, such that, even with the exercise of diligence, it
11
will be difficult, if not impossible, to comply with the current trial date. March 13,
12
2017 is the first court day after the final class of Mr. Fields course at Stanford Law
13
School.
Defendants have informed Plaintiffs that they do not oppose the relief sought
14
15
by this motion, so long as trial is scheduled sufficiently in advance of April 17,
16
2017 as to be completed by this date.
17
18
19
II.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs hereby provide the following information in compliance with
20
paragraph 3(a) of the Courts Amended Scheduling and Case Management Order,
21
dated February 29, 2016. See concurrently filed Declaration of James Molen
22
(Molen Decl.), 2-5.
23
Existing Trial Date: Trial in this matter is currently set for January 31, 2017.
24
Proposed Trial Date: Plaintiffs seek an order continuing the trial date until
25
26
27
March 13, 2017, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be set for trial.
Other Dates Set by Court: The Court has set the following dates in its
Amended Scheduling and Case Management Order:
28
17896-00617/2649479.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11

& MACHTINGER LLP
12
13
14
15
Matter
Trial (jury)
Hearing on Motions in Limine; Hearing
on Disputed Jury Instructions
Pre-Trial Conference; File Proposed
Voir Dire Qs and Agreed-to Statement
of Case
Submit Pre-Trial Conf. Order; File
Motions in Limine; Memo of
Contentions of Fact and Law; Pre-Trial
Exhibit Stipulation; Summary of
Witness Testimony and Time Estimates;
File Status Report re Settlement; File
Agreed Upon Set of Jury Instructions
and Verdict Forms; File Joint Statement
re Disputed Instructions, Verdicts, etc.
Last day for hearing motions
Discovery cut-off
Last day to file Joint Report re
Settlement Conference
Last day to conduct Settlement
Conference
Current Date
January 31, 2017
January 20, 2017
January 13, 2017
January 2, 2017
November 28, 2016

November 1, 2016
May 10, 2016
May 3, 2016
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Prior Requests for Extension

The parties have previously sought the following extensions, upon which the
Court ruled in the manner stated:
On June 3, 2015, plaintiffs sought to continue the Scheduling Conference
from August 17, 2015 to September 14, 2015. Dkt. 10. On June 4, 2015, the Court
denied plaintiffs request, but ordered that it would not require the appearance of
counsel at the Scheduling Conference. Dkt. 11.
On July 9, 2015, the parties filed a joint stipulation to continue the hearing on
defendants Motion to Stay from August 10, 2015 to September 14, 2015. Dkt. 23.
On July 10, 2015, the Court denied the parties request, but ordered that it would
rule on the papers and that no hearing on the motion would be required. Dkt. 24.
28
17896-00617/2649479.1
On February 25, 2016, the parties filed a joint stipulation to modify the
Courts original Scheduling and Case Management Order. Dkt. 111. On February
29, 2016, the Court granted the parties request and issued its Amended Scheduling
and Case Management Order. Dkt. 112-113.
5
6


& MACHTINGER LLP
III.
GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE REQUESTED CONTINUANCE

Local Rule 40-1 provides that a party may apply for a continuance of a trial
at least five days before the day set for trial. The Court, in its discretion, may order
the continuance for good cause shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). In the Ninth
10
Circuit, the good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party
11
seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,
12
609 (9th Cir. 1992). That is, a party may demonstrate good cause for the
13
modification of a scheduling order by showing that even with the exercise of
14
diligence, it is unable to meet the current deadlines. Id.
15
Good cause exists for the requested continuance here because Bertram
16
Fields, lead trial counsel for Plaintiffs, is committed to teaching at Stanford Law
17
School during the 2017 winter quarter, such that, even with the exercise of
18
diligence, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to comply with the current trial date.
19
See concurrently filed Declaration of Bertram Fields (Fields Decl.), 3, 6.
20
Mr. Fields has been practicing law in Los Angeles since 1955. For the past
21
six years, he has taught a course at Standard Law School for one quarter a year. As
22
in years past, he is committed to teaching this course for the academic year 2016-
23
2017. Fields Decl., 2-3.
24
This year, Stanford Law School has set Mr. Fields course for winter quarter
25
2017 i.e., from January 13 to March 10, 2017. The course is three hours every
26
Friday morning, and requires Mr. Fields to fly to Northern California in advance.
27
Students have already signed up for this course. Fields Decl., 3.
28
17896-00617/2649479.1
1
2
Plaintiffs originally estimated that the trial would require at least 10 trial days,
whereas Defendants stated that it would be premature even to estimate the length of
the trial. Fields Decl., 4. In its Amended Scheduling and Case Management
Order, the Court estimated the length of the trial as only 4 days and set January 31,
2017 as the trial date. Dkt. 113.


& MACHTINGER LLP
This case is a complex antitrust action involving many contested issues.
If this were only a four day trial starting on January 31, 2017, a guest lecturer
or co-instructor could potentially cover Mr. Fields missed lecture at Stanford on
February 3, 2017. Yet it is now abundantly clear that this case cannot be tried in
10
four days or anything close to that very limited period, due to the numerous
11
complex issues to be tried. Fields Decl., 6-7. Indeed, it now appears that even
12
Plaintiffs original estimate of at least 10 days may have been overly optimistic. Id.
13
By way of illustration, the issues to be tried in this case include, among other
14
things:
15
The proper definition of the market for managing elite boxers;
16
The proper definition of the market for promoting such boxers;
17
The extent of interchangeability and cross-elasticity of demand with
18
19
20
21
respect to such management and promotion;

Whether Defendants have functioned as a boxing manager for
numerous elite boxers;
Whether, at the same time, Defendants have functioned as a boxing
22
promoter for such boxers or had a financial interest in such a boxing
23
promoter (an anti-competitive violation of the Muhammad Ali Boxing
24
Reform Act)
25
Whether Defendants have used exclusivity provisions in their
26
agreements with elite boxers and others to exclude Plaintiffs from
27
competing to promote such boxers and from obtaining other elements
28
essential to the boxing promotion business;

17896-00617/2649479.1
Whether Defendants have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to buy
up television air time on every network, using contractual exclusivity
provisions to exclude Plaintiffs from the television exhibition of bouts
essential to Plaintiffs promotional business
5
6
7
choice boxing venues on favorable dates;

Whether Defendants have engaged in the other forms of anticompetitive conduct alleged by Plaintiffs;
The impact of Defendants anti-competitive conduct on competition;
10
The extent of Defendants present share of the market for managing
11

& MACHTINGER LLP
Whether Defendants used improper methods to exclude Plaintiffs from
12
13
elite boxers;
The extent of Defendants present share of the market for promoting
elite boxers;
14
The barriers to entry in the market for managing elite boxers;
15
The barriers to entry in the market for promoting elite boxers
16
The likelihood of Defendants using their dominance in the market for
17
managing elite boxers and their anti-competitive conduct to obtain
18
monopoly power in the market for promoting such boxers; and
19
20
The damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a proximate result of

Defendants unlawful conduct.
21
22
Fields Decl., 7.
23
24
Each of the above issues is contested, and many break down into multiple
25
sub-issues. In addition, many of these issues will require a detailed factual analysis
26
of multiple transactions. Trial on these issues will require a substantial number of
27
percipient witnesses for each side, as well as extensive expert testimony. Fields
28
Decl., 7. Even with diligent efforts by counsel to streamline and expedite the
17896-00617/2649479.1
process, the necessary length of a trial commencing on January 31 would
necessarily preclude Mr. Fields from complying with his teaching commitment at
Stanford Law School. Id., 8.
Therefore, under the circumstances, Plaintiffs respectfully request a brief
continuance of the trial date from January 31, 2017 to March 13, 2017, the first
available court date after Mr. Fields final class at Stanford Law School, or such
date thereafter as the Court may deem proper.


& MACHTINGER LLP
IV.
DEFENDANTS DO NOT OPPOSE THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THIS
10
MOTION
11
Defendants have informed Plaintiffs that they do not oppose the relief sought
12
by this motion, so long as trial is scheduled sufficiently in advance of April 17,
13
2017 as to be completed by this date. Molen Decl., 6.
14
15
16
V.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court
17
continue the trial date in this matter until March 13, 2017, or as soon thereafter as
18
the matter may be set for trial.
19
20
DATED: July 29, 2016
21

22
By: /s/ Bertram Fields
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Golden Boy
Promotions LLC and Bernard Hopkins
23
24
25
26
27
28
17896-00617/2649479.1

Motion To Continue Trial Date

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Motion To Continue Trial Date

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 2:15-cv-03378-JFW-MRW Document 125 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:2377

1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor

GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN

BERTRAM FIELDS (SBN 024199)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GOLDEN BOY PROMOTIONS, LLC,

Case No. 2:15-cv-03378 JFW (MRWx)

August 29, 2016

Complaint Filed: May 5, 2015