Jones et al v. Schneiderman et al
| Jon Jones, Gina Carano, Frankie Edgar, Matt Hamill, Brian Stann, Zuffa, LLC, Danielle Hobeika, Beth Hurrle, Donna Hurrle, Steve Kardian, Joseph Lozito, Erik Owings, Chris Reitz and Jennifer Santiago |
| Eric T. Schneiderman and Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. |
| 1:2011cv08215 |
| November 15, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Kimba M. Wood |
| Constitutionality of State Statutes |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
146
OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiffs have thus failed to establish any injury in fact related to the Liquor Law, and the Court grants summary judgment for Defendants on all remaining claims. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for summary ju dgment is DENIED and Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in full. Plaintiffs, particularly Zuffa, may consider filing new vagueness claims based on events that occurred after this lawsuit commenced, including the OAG's rec ent statements that the Ban prohibits sanctioned professional MMA (despite its plain language to the contrary). The Court advises Plaintiffs to weigh the merits of a new federal suit against those of a state declaratory judgment action, given that the latter unlike a federal decision on vagueness grounds could decisively settle disputes regarding the Ban's scope. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 3/31/2015) (kl) Modified on 3/31/2015 (kl).
|
|
Filing
49
OPINION & ORDER re: 36 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by Eric T. Schneiderman: For the aforementioned reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. [Dkt. No. 36]. Consistent with this opinion, Plaintiffs' as-applied vagueness challenge is not dismissed; the remainder of Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 9/30/2013) (tn)
|
|
Filing
31
OPINION AND ORDER re: 18 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Notice of Motion. filed by Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., 15 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss (limited) 4th and 5th Causes of Action. filed by Eric T. Schneiderman. Plaintiffs have asked the Court to i nvalidate the ban because, they allege, MMAs safetyconcerns have been discredited and the sport itself has been reformed. Indeed, 45 of 48 states with athletic commissions now allow it. But if the evolution of MMA and the understanding of its risks h ave rendered the 1997 law unnecessary or unwise, Plaintiffs proper recourse is with the legislature because the Constitution presumes that, absent some reason to infer antipathy, even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democrat ic process and that judicial intervention is generally unwarranted no matter how unwisely [a court] may think that a political branch has acted." Beach Commc'ns, 508 U.S. at 314 (quoting Vance, 440 U.S. at 97). The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts IV and V. The Court directs the parties to submit by August 31, 2012 a joint proposed schedule for resolving the remainder of this case. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 8/13/2012) (djc)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
