BYD Sports v. King

Background

BYD Sports, LLC and BYD Management, LLC sued Don King, Don King Productions, Inc. (DKP), and unidentified defendants. The complaint alleged defamation, tortious interference with economic relations, and breach of contract arising from a proposed boxing event in Nigeria. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs’ representative, Cecil Miller, worked with King on the event, later changed its name, and proceeded without King after learning that King did not own the rights to the original event name. King and DKP then sent Miller a cease-and-desist letter to Nigerian officials and posted it on social media. The plaintiffs alleged that the letter contributed to cancellation of the event and loss of a streaming relationship.

Defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint for improper venue and failure to state a claim, or alternatively to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Venue Analysis

The court first rejected the plaintiffs’ judicial-estoppel argument. Judicial estoppel prevents a party from taking a factual position in one proceeding that conflicts with a position it successfully took in an earlier proceeding. The court held that defendants’ positions in other cases did not involve the same claims, events, and venue circumstances, so those earlier positions did not prevent defendants from challenging venue here.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on a forum-selection clause in a 2021 promotional agreement involving DKP, boxer Alonzo Butler, and Miller. The clause required certain actions related to that agreement and Butler’s boxing bouts to be brought in the Southern District of New York. The court held that the current claims—concerning the proposed Nigerian event and the allegedly defamatory disavowal of it—were outside the clause’s scope.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue may exist where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred. The court found that no defendant resided in the Southern District of New York and that the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficiently close connection between that district and their claims. The cease-and-desist letter concerned activities in Nigeria, was sent by defendants in Florida to plaintiffs in Virginia and a Nigerian government official, and primarily resulted in cancellation of the Nigerian event. The court concluded that alleged effects involving a New York media company, New York-related business contacts, and social-media users were only ancillary consequences. Posting the letter on global social-media websites and defendants’ general participation in New York’s entertainment industry also did not establish venue.

Disposition

Because venue did not lie in the Southern District of New York, the court considered whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) would serve the interest of justice. It found that the case could have been brought in the Southern District of Florida because King resided there, DKP had its principal place of business there, and a substantial part of the relevant acts occurred there. The court also noted that at least some allegations might be viable, making transfer preferable to dismissal.

The court granted defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It denied defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). Because the case was transferred, the court declined to rule on the separate motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.