Gomez v. New Champion Promotions

Background

New Champion Promotions, LLC and Jesse Rodriguez moved for summary judgment on four remaining causes of action in Andy Cruz Gomez’s Third Amended Complaint. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial that is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute about any fact important to the claim and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court rejected several facts that defendants presented as undisputed. The court said those facts either remained disputed or conflicted with factual findings it had already made after a bench trial. Those disputes included why Matchroom Boxing USA, LLC paid money connected to Gomez’s bouts to New Champion Promotions, whether Rodriguez had personal access to or control over the company’s accounts, the amount of Gomez’s purse for his second bout, and whether defendants agreed to hold money for Gomez.

The court had previously found that New Champion Promotions acted as an intermediary in bringing Gomez to a major boxing promoter. It had also found that New Champion Promotions received $430,750 from Matchroom for Gomez’s signing bonus and first two bouts, paid $283,470 directly to Sanchez, and paid another $81,140 to Gomez’s manager and attorney, which defendants argued should count as payments to Gomez.

Rulings on Gomez’s Claims

Third Cause of Action: California Boxing Laws

Gomez alleged that defendants violated California Business and Professions Code sections 18628 and following by acting as an unlicensed boxing manager and receiving more than 10 percent of his signing bonus and purses. Defendants argued that they were not acting as managers and that the statute did not provide Gomez with a private right to sue.

The court dismissed the third cause of action. It explained that the claim was moot because the court had already determined that defendants’ work was limited to helping procure a major boxing promoter and that they had no role in Gomez’s bouts in California. The court also stated that the statute did not create a civil remedy for the alleged violation. The court said the cases Gomez cited involved whether contracts were valid, not a separate civil claim under the statute.

Sixth Cause of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty

The court denied summary judgment on Gomez’s breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim. A fiduciary relationship is a relationship involving special trust in which one party must act in the other party’s best interests.

The court found that a jury could determine that the relationship between Gomez and defendants was similar to a manager-and-boxer relationship, a trustee-and-beneficiary relationship, or another confidential relationship. A jury could also find that no fiduciary relationship existed. The court further concluded that disputed facts required a trial on whether defendants breached any duty and whether Gomez was harmed.

Seventh Cause of Action: Conversion

Conversion is the wrongful taking or use of another person’s property. Defendants sought summary judgment for Rodriguez on the ground that any conduct involving Matchroom’s payments could be attributed only to New Champion Promotions.

The court denied summary judgment on this claim. It said defendants had not explained why a jury could not find that Rodriguez and New Champion Promotions should both be liable, including through a finding that Rodriguez and the company were effectively the same for purposes of the alleged wrongful conduct. The court relied in part on Rodriguez’s testimony about his personal use of New Champion Promotions’ accounts.

Eighth Cause of Action: California Penal Code Section 496

The court denied summary judgment on Gomez’s claim under California Penal Code section 496. That statute addresses receiving, concealing, selling, or withholding property known to have been stolen or obtained through theft or extortion, and allows an injured person to seek treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees in a civil action.

The court held that the claim involved a disputed issue of criminal intent. Defendants argued that Matchroom paid New Champion Promotions because it believed the company held Gomez’s promotional rights and would divide the money with him. The court said that belief might have been Matchroom’s belief, but whether defendants intentionally kept money that belonged to Gomez remained disputed.

Remaining Cross-Claim and Choice of Law

The case also includes defendants’ second cause of action in their First Amended Cross-Complaint, which the court previously construed as a claim for quantum meruit—payment for the reasonable value of services performed—rather than unjust enrichment.

The court had not yet decided which state’s law governs the remaining claims. It identified possible applications of Florida, New York, and California law based on the agreements and the claims. The court allowed the parties to stipulate to the governing law for each claim by March 24, 2026. If they could not agree, they were required to submit simultaneous briefs of no more than five pages on the choice-of-law issue.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the third cause of action. The sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action, along with defendants’ second cause of action in the First Amended Cross-Complaint, will proceed to a jury trial. The order identified June 12, 2026, or August 17, 2026, as possible trial dates, subject to the parties’ confirmation.