Why did Oscar settled the defamation suit?

^
this

 

No one likes to lose....but going through a long drawn out process where it will be very PUBLIC in nature is a lot more embarrassing and financially taxing than going the route of apologizing and removing themselves from the financial consequences.

 

Are you serious? Golden Boy and Richard S..... know the law. Actually so does Bob. Dick knew what time it was and when the judge REFUSED their request to throw out the lawsuit not once, but TWICE......GBP and co. like good business men knew when to fold'em. At some point in business you cut your losses and some times that means having to admit wrong and live through a few embarrassing weeks rather than be STUPID and suffer embarrassment for years....Not to mention the loss of a lawsuit is also more draining financially than a settlement.

Oh.....the reason why this case was so "open and shut" is simple. There's evidence and proof that they made "defaming" comments aimed at Manny that pulled into question his integrity, character and life's work as a professional prize fighter.

And as a PRO fighter for YEARS in the sport...having undergone NUMEROUS drug tests that have ALL came up CLEAN....PAC's legal team has ALL the "PROOF" that those statements are FALSE going as far back at 1996.

If anything this whole this has been bad biz....but mostly for Golden Boy and Floyd. Manny on the other hand has come out of this whole thing rather nicely. Aside from a few fans and media types who are harsh and side with Floyd, PAC has continued to grown as a sports icon on a global scale.

 

Because he defamed Pacquiao

 

Trials are expensive. The details of the case against Golden Boy may have been weaker than the one against Team Mayweather given that the most outrageous statements were made by them. There's a pretty high barrier to cross in a defamation suit against a celebrity. There probably wasn't a lot of money exchanged, if any.

Golden Boy and Top Rank are clearly warming to each other. That apology may even have been part of the settlement. This was probably resolved more by making deals than it was by outright exchanging money.

 

he just dick-rided mayweather in the thought that floyd would fight more under his promotions. now that floyd seemed to be not to keen on fighting, there's no use to riding on floyd's propaganda and better to cash-in with pacquiao by settling and be hopeful that pac fights ortiz or other GBP fighters next.

 

Throwing out the lawsuit this early would have been premature. It meant nothing about the outcome of the case. Not asking to dismiss the case would have been malpractice, but everyone knew that it wasn't going to get dismissed at this time. You overestimate the importance of the judge's refusal.

This case is a big waste of time for everyone, but you're right that everyone comes out looking bad but Pacquiao.

 

No it wouldn't be. BOTH sides presented a file with facts and evidence supporting their case to the judge. Based on what was presented the Judge could NOT rule in favor of the request to throw out the lawsuit...2 times!

Of course the fact that the judge did NOT accept the request from Golden Boy and Floyd to throw it out, had nothing to do with the outcome. The outcome only is possible AFTER a trial.

Richard is a lawyer so is Bob....the reason Bob and Richard have taken their respective stance in this situation is b/c BOTH know who has a strong case and who doesn't. They both have experience in the legal realm.

It is a MASSIVE waste of time which is why I'm surprised they didn't settle sooner.

 

Everyone wins when people do the right thing.....well, most of the time.:yep Now...if Floyd apologies to Manny, he'll have one less legal battle he has to deal with and it would go a long way in helping his image....But he should be apologizing to EVERYONE....His baby momma, his kids, the long list of security guards he's assulted and Maybe even PAC...if he's ever serious about fighting him.

 

At this point in the trial the motion to dismiss is the defendants way of saying "there's no case here" and the plaintiff saying "yes there is, they did this!" The judge has ruled that assuming eveything in Pacquiao's complaint is true then there is a cause for action. He did not rule that what is alleged is true, he's merely saying that the complaint has merit.

There's a pretty decent analysis of the situation by a lawyer here: http://www.fightlawyerblog.com/search/label/Pacquiao. The summation though is that he was confident the case wouldn't be dismissed but that it would be very difficult for Pacquiao to win.

The real test of this case would have been when they asked for summary judgment.

Now having said that, I just said read the judge's opinion and Schaefer appears to be really ****ing stupid. I cannot believe that he said he was sure Pacquiao was taking steroids. His involvement could have been avoided if he only said "I believe that he is taking steroids."

I think the case is stronger than I initially believed, but I still have a hard time believing that it was worth it. Even if Pacquiao were to win, what damages will he show? If Nike pulled out of a deal then I'd be scared for Golden Boy's future, but as far as I know this hasn't impacted his career financially.

 

Its simple thats what drugs make you do

 

Because it's ****ing ******ed man. Top Rank and GBP working against each other is killing the sport and slowly the dumb suits in both companies are gonna have to realize that copromotion is way more important for longterm success than whats going down now.

 

That's the whole point...Richard is NOT the only one who said this. Claiming that they were all sure PAC was cheating. That's the ONLY reason this case has legs to stand on.

Typically...defamation lawsuits are the hardest to win....but when there are some many facts, articles, audio clips ect. of the same men claiming the same thing....it makes this an open and shut case.

The difference here is that Floyd, Rog and Sr are all "solo"...they aren't a corporation or a company....they are ALL responsible for their own words. GOLDEN BOY however if ONE man speaks as a representative of this company...ALL who are over the company are held liable. Which is why Golden Boy took this route.

The damages are NOT going to be related to monies that were lost or affected by the accusations. There's really no way to determine if PAC lost out on some potential endorsement opportunities or not. There's obviously A LOT of major corporations who don't mind PAC's situation and don't pay it any mind.

But having to deal with the accusations, speculation and questioning from those who do believe is the bigger issue for PAC. These are things that he never had to deal with before Floyd's comments and as a direct effect, PAC will have to accept that his reputation for SOME will always be in question.

 

I still don't agree that this is open and shut. The judge appears to be on your side regarding a few of the comments, so I'm not going to say you're wrong, but just because you say something bad about someone doesn't mean it's actionable defamation. Not to mention this stuff would most likely go in front of a jury.

Take this comment, for example:

The judge said this about many comments, but it applies to the above:

In other words, the judge is saying that Mayweather is making a statement of fact. It's classless and stupid, but would a reasonable listener really think that Mayweather has actual knowledge from a comment like that?

I think Schaefer's comment is borderline, but most of the comments are objectively ridiculous. I don't understand how an argument can be made that they were meant to be communicating facts. Never once did I actually believe that these guys were alleging they had actual knowledge of Pacquiao taking steroids.

I was going to say that I disagree with you on this, but you're actually right. I will say that you can bring in folks that walked away as witnesses to show actual damages, but that argument is moot at this point. The judge states that if the complaint is true then it's defamation per se which means that he wouldn't need to show actual damages - just presumed damages.

I'm going to law school in the Fall so please don't think I'm arguing with you because I'm on a side - I'm just interested in the case itself.