Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 1 of 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

CIVIL NO.: 17-1953 (PAD)
AUSTIN TROUT

Plaintiff

v. VIOLATION OF THE MUHAMMAD ALI
ACT; BREACH OF CONTRACT; FRAUD;
ORGANIZACIÓN MUNDIAL DE BOXEO, DAMAGES
INC.
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY
Defendant.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Mr. Austin Trout (hereinafter

referred to as “Plaintiff”), through the undersigned attorneys,

and under the precepts of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(B) and the Honorable

Court’s Case Management Order contained in Docket No. 25, very

respectfully States and Prays:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has federal question subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Muhammad Ali

Boxing Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6309(d) (hereinafter the “Muhammad

Ali Act”). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state

law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court also has
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 2 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(l) because

the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest

and costs, and is between citizens of different states. There is

complete diversity of citizenship.

2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

The contract at issue in this case provides for disputes to be

resolved in this judicial district. The forum selection clause in

the contract demonstrates that Puerto Rico is a convenient forum

for the defendants and that they consent to personal jurisdiction

herein. Also, there is no forum more convenient or more centrally

located for all of the parties than this Court. Accordingly, venue

is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3. Plaintiff demands a jury trial of all triable issues.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Austin Trout is a citizen of the United States

of America, of legal age, and resident of Doña Ana County, New

Mexico.

5. Defendant Organización Mundial de Boxeo, Inc. (“WBO”) is

a corporation organized and with its principal place of business

in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Defendant’s last known address is 1056

Ave. Muñoz Rivera, Suite 711, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00927.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 3 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
Professional Boxer Austin Trout

6. Austin Trout is a professional boxer from Las Cruces,

New Mexico. He has lived almost his entire life in Las Cruces, New

Mexico.

7. During his youth and early adult years, Plaintiff had an

exceptional boxing amateur career. In 2004, he was the United

States Amateur Welterweight Champion. He served as an alternate to

the 2008 United States Olympic Boxing Team. He had over 160

victories as an amateur.

8. On September 16, 2005, Plaintiff made his professional

debut. From 2005 through 2011, Plaintiff built an undefeated

record.

9. On February 5, 2011, Plaintiff fought Rigoberto Alvarez

for the World Boxing Association Junior Middleweight Championship.

Plaintiff defeated Mr. Alvarez by a wide margin to become world

champion.

10. After three successful title defenses, Plaintiff fought

Puerto Rican star Miguel Cotto in Madison Square on December 1,

2012, in a bout televised on Showtime. Mr. Cotto, a six (6) time

world champion in four (4) different weight divisions, is highly

regarded and is considered to be one of the best boxers of his

generation. Plaintiff defeated Mr. Cotto by wide margins on all of

the scorecards.

3
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 4 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
11. Plaintiff next fought against Saul “Canelo” Alvarez on

April 20, 2013 at the Alamodome in San Antonio, Texas in front of

40,000 spectators in a fight that was again televised on Showtime.

Mr. Alvarez, a four (4) time world champion in two (2) different

weight divisions, is a major star of professional boxing who is

currently training for an upcoming bout with unified middleweight

champion, Gennady Golovkin1. Plaintiff lost a controversial

decision that many spectators and commentators felt he deserved to

win. Plaintiff’s only other losses where to current World Boxing

Association Light Middleweight Champion Erislandy Lara, a former

amateur world champion, and two time, and current, world champion,

and Mr. Jermall Charlo, an undefeated former light middleweight

world champion.

12. Plaintiff’s professional record stands at 30 wins, only

3 losses, with 17 of those wins coming by way of knockout.

Plaintiff has earned worldwide recognition for his talent and

accomplishments, and when not fighting often serves as a

commentator on television broadcasts for boxing.

The World Boxing Organization

13. The WBO is a professional organization that has

jurisdiction and competence over all of its associated

organizations and Members. By joining the WBO, Members agree to

1The Alvarez vs. Golovkin championship bout is expected to be one of the highest
grossing events in the history of boxing.

4
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 5 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
comply with the Statutes and other legal instruments that govern

the operation of the WBO. Thus, the privilege of membership

requires Members to abide by the governing rules and regulations

of the WBO, and other WBO mandates. Accordingly, the WBO governs

the conduct of boxing matches by and among its Members, including

governing the weight class ranking system and championship bout at

issue in the present litigation. The WBO also governs its promoter

Members.

14. The WBO is considered by most people in the boxing

industry to be one of the four major Sanctioning Organizations in

the sport of professional boxing, along with the International

Boxing Federation, World Boxing Association, and World Boxing

Council.

15. As per the WBO Constitution, the assets of the WBO derive

from and are allocated as follows:

a) The annual fees of the Members to be fixed in the
General Assembly;
b) The donations and contributions given to the
Organizations by natural or juridical, persons, national
or foreigners to promote professional boxing at the
world level;
c) The real and personal properties acquired by the
Organization pursuant to the law, as well as the
income from the possession of said properties;
d) The fees for sanctioning contest that must be canceled
by Promoters and Boxers in every boxing
event2

2The WBO supports itself financially through the imposition of Sanctions
Fees that amount to three (3%) of the purses for both the champion and
challenger. A “purse” is generally recognized term for the payment to a
boxer for any given fight. The WBO also imposes a promoter’s sanction fee
and required donation to the WBO’s “Welfare Fund” by a given promoter, a

5
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 6 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
e) Any other income received by the organization.

16. The WBO maintains continuous and substantial activity in

Puerto Rico through its incorporation, physical presence, and own

actions in ranking fighters and holding championship fights on a

regular basis both itself and through its regional divisions, such

as the NABO and WBO Latino.

17. Plaintiff, at all times relevant herein, was a Member in

good standing of the WBO. Under the applicable rules and

regulations of the WBO, Plaintiff was the “Best Classified

Contender Available” for the WBO Super Welterweight Championship,

at least, during the months of June, July, August, September and

October 2015.

18. According to its Constitution, the WBO’s objective and

purpose, in part, is to “[e]stablish the operating rules of the

activities carried out by the Members of the Organization,

regarding the practice of professional boxing at world level.”

19. The WBO has a Constitution, By-Laws, and Regulations

that ostensibly govern its practices as a boxing Sanctioning

Organization.

combined total of which can range from anywhere between $4,000 and $25,000
depending upon the total purses of the boxers in any given championship
fight.

6
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 7 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
20. The WBO Constitution, Rules and Regulations constitute

binding contracts between the WBO and its Members, including

professional boxers such as Plaintiff.

21. Since the privilege of membership requires Members to

abide by the governing rules and regulations of the WBO, and other

WBO mandates, since the terms of the WBO Constitution, Rules and

Regulations can be unilaterally and arbitrarily changed and

amended by the WBO, and since the provisions of these Constitution,

Rules and Regulations are not subject to any kind of negotiation

between the WBO and its Members, the WBO’s Constitution, Rules and

Regulations constitute an adhesion contract.

22. Pursuant to the rules established by its governing

bodies, the WBO recognizes champions in numerous weight classes in

professional boxing.

23. Also pursuant to these rules and regulations, as well as

to the applicable federal legislation discussed herein, the WBO

ranks professional boxers in each weight division. These rankings

determine who has the ability to fight for the WBO title according

to its Regulations.

24. The WBO establishes that its Constitution, Rules and

Regulations are subject to, and shall be interpreted and enforced

as consistent with, the Professional Boxing Safety Act, Title 15

Chapter 89 Sections 6301 et. seq., and any other Federal statute

or regulation in force, and as amended from time to time.

7
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 8 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
25. In its Rules and Regulations, the WBO demands

professional boxers, such as Plaintiff, to comply with the

Association of Boxing Commissions Criteria for Ratings of

Professional Boxers.

26. Pursuant to WBO Regulations, if a title is declared

vacant, the two Best Classified Contenders Available are entitled

to fight for the vacant title.

27. The minimum purse bid for a junior middleweight title

fight for a vacant title would be $200,000 with each fighter

guaranteed at least 40% of that amount depending upon the

geographical location of the fight.

28. Recognition as a champion by the WBO is commercially

valuable and provides the champion with certain rights and

privileges not held by any other boxer Member of the WBO in his

weight class. The accolade of being the WBO World Champion also

has considerable monetary value. For example, championship bouts

typically have higher commercial value than non-championship

bouts, resulting in higher payments to the participants, than non-

championship bouts.

29. Even with the relatively recent proliferation of title

belts that result in such championship fights among the major

sanctioning bodies, the concept of a title fight and the chance to

be a world title holder continues to capture popular imagination.

As the WBO Regulations eloquently state:

8
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 9 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
The World Championship has been established for generations
as the highest objective in professional boxing. A World
Championship is not the property of any boxer. The
Championship is a trust, subject to the conditions defined
herein, for the use and benefit of all boxers and boxing fans,
who through their contribution of time, effort, risks, and
resources sustain the existence of the profession. The World
Boxing Organization encourages each World Champion and
Challenger to be an example of the highest ideals and spirt
of sportsmanship.

30. Beyond that, status as a world title holder opens doors

for a professional fighter for sponsorship, marketing, and

endorsement opportunities that have significant financial value.

Congress Enacts the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act

31. Congress enacted the Muhammad Ali Act on May 26, 2000 to

protect the rights and welfare of professional boxers by preventing

certain exploitive, oppressive and unethical business practices.

32. In enacting the Muhammad Ali Act, Congress specifically

recognized that the sport of boxing “operates without any private

sector association, league, or centralized industry organization

to establish uniform and appropriate business practices and

ethical standards” which “lead to repeated occurrences of

disreputable and coercive business practices in the boxing

industry, to the detriment of professional boxers nationwide.”

33. Furthermore, Congress stated that Sanctioning

Organizations, such as defendant WBO, “have not established

credible and objective criteria to rate professional boxers, and

operate with virtually no industry or public oversight. Their

9
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 10 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
ratings are susceptible to manipulation, have deprived boxers of

fair opportunities for advancement, and have undermined public

confidence in the integrity of the sport”. In addition, Congress

established that “Open competition in the professional boxing

industry has been significantly interfered with by restrictive and

anticompetitive business practices of certain promoters and

sanctioning bodies, to the detriment of the athletes and the ticket

buying public. Common practices of promoters and Sanctioning

Organizations represent restraints of interstate trade in the

United States”.

34. The prevailing abusive and arbitrary policies of

promoters and Sanctioning Organizations convinced Congress that it

was “necessary and appropriate to establish national contracting

reforms to protect professional boxers and prevent exploitive

business practices, and to require enhanced financial disclosures

to State athletic commissions to improve the public oversight of

the sport”.

35. In order to implement and enforce the mandates of the

Muhammad Ali Act, Congress ordered the Association of Boxing

Commissions (hereinafter “ABC”), among other things, to develop

and approve guidelines for objective and consistent written

criteria for the ratings of professional boxers. 15 U.S.C. §

6307(c)(a).

10
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 11 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
36. As such, the Muhammad Ali Act specifically requires a

Sanctioning Organization, like defendant WBO, to abide and follow

the guidelines for objective and consistent written criteria for

the ratings of professional boxers established by the Association

of Boxing Commissions. 15 U.S.C. § 6307(c)(a).

37. When there is a change in the rating of a classified

professional boxer, the Muhammad Ali Act further requires

Sanctioning Organizations, like defendant WBO, to “provide to the

boxer a written explanation of the organization’s criteria, its

rating of the boxer, and the rationale or basis for its rating

(including a response to any specific questions submitted by the

boxer); and submit a copy of its explanation to the Association of

Boxing Commissions. 15 U.S.C. § 6307(c)(b).

38. Under the Muhammad Ali Act, Sanctioning Organizations

must also, with respect to a change in the rating of a boxer

previously rated by such organization in the top 10 boxers, “post

a copy, within 7 days of such change, on its Internet website or

home page, if any, including an explanation of such change, for a

period of not less than 30 days; and provide a copy of the rating

change and explanation to an association to which at least a

majority of the State boxing commissions belong”. 15 U.S.C. §

6307(c)(b)(1)(2).

Plaintiff Austin Trout Enters and Ascends in the WBO Junior

Middleweight Rankings

11
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 12 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
39. In 2014, Plaintiff gave consideration to the next step

in his career. He determined that he would aspire to become the

WBO Junior Middleweight champion. Plaintiff was unranked by the

WBO in early 2014.

40. After discussion with approval by the WBO of the

opportunity to enter its rankings, the WBO ranked Plaintiff No. 9

in November 2014. Plaintiff gave up other potential career paths

and opportunities to make a commitment to rise in the WBO rankings

and eventually compete for its world junior middleweight title.

41. During this time, Plaintiff fought regularly to put

together a string of victories, most of which by knockout.

Plaintiff defeated Daniel Dawson on August 22, 2014 on a fight

televised on ESPN 2. Plaintiff defeated Luis Grajeda by knockout

on December 11, 2014 in a fight televised on ESPN 2. Plaintiff

defeated Luis Galarza by knockout on May 9, 2015 with highlights

of the fight being shown on a Premier Boxing Champions telecast on

CBS. Plaintiff defeated Joey Hernández by knockout on September 9,

2015 on a fight televised on Fox Sports 1.

42. During this time, Plaintiff continued to rise in the WBO

rankings. By June 2015, the WBO ranked Plaintiff No. 4 in its

junior middleweight rankings.

The WBO Unlawfully Strips Plaintiff Austin Trout from its

Rankings.

12
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 13 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
43. During this time, Demetrius Andrade was the WBO junior

middleweight champion, having won the title by a victory on

November 9, 2013. After defending his title once in June 2014, Mr.

Andrade entered into a period of inactivity.

44. On July 15, 2015, the WBO sent Mr. Andrade a Show Cause

letter indicating that he had ten days to show cause as to why Mr.

Andrade had not defended his championship. In doing so, the WBO

indicated that it “must enforce its rules”.

45. On July 31, 2015, the WBO World Championship Committee

entered a resolution to strip Demetrius Andrade of his WBO Junior

Middleweight World Championship.

46. At this point, pursuant to its Regulations, the WBO was

supposed to provide an opportunity for the two Best Classified

Contenders Available to negotiate to fight for the vacant title.

47. Pursuant to the June 2015 rankings, the top four

contenders were as follows: 1. Saul “Canelo” Alvarez; 2. Oleksandr

Spyrko; 3. Michel Soro; and 4. Austin Trout.

48. It has been known for most of the calendar year that Mr.

Alvarez would fight Puerto Rican Miguel Cotto in a lucrative pay-

per-view fight in November 20153, so Mr. Alvarez would not be an

available contender. By this time, Mr. Michel Soro was involved in

3 The Saul Álvarez vs. Miguel Cotto fight in fact took place on November 21,
2015.

13
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 14 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
a legal dispute with his promoter that, by the WBO’s own

determination, prevented him from being available.

49. As a result, under its rankings as of June 2016,

Plaintiff would have qualified as one of the two Best Classified

Contenders available to fight for the vacant title.

50. In July 2015 and August 2015, however, Plaintiff,

despite not having a lost a fight, fell completely out of the

rankings. Instead, Mr. Liam “Beefy” Smith became the No. 4 and No.

3 ranked fighter in the respective monthly rankings.

51. Plaintiff requested several times an explanation from

the WBO as to why he disappeared from the rankings during the

months of July and August 2015.

52. Defendant WBO did not notify Plaintiff of the change in

his rankings, nor did the WBO provide a written explanation as to

the objective reasons, if any, for Plaintiff’s disappearance from

the WBO rankings in July and August 2015.

53. Defendant WBO did not notify the ABC about the reasons

for Plaintiff’s change in the WBO rankings in July and August 2015.

54. Defendant WBO did not post on its website the reasons

for Plaintiff’s disappearance from the WBO rankings in July and

August 2015 within and during the term established in the Muhammad

Ali Act.

55. By failing to provide a written explanation as to the

objective reasons for Plaintiff’s disappearance from the WBO

14
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 15 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
rankings in July and August 2015, the WBO violated the precise

requirements of the Muhammad Ali Act.

56. On August 24, 2015, the WBO issued an Approval Letter

for a vacant WBO Junior Middleweight to take place between Liam

“Beefy” Smith and John Thompson in Manchester, England. Neither

Mr. Smith nor Mr. Thompson have ever been a world champion or

fought and defeated anyone close to the caliber of the opponents

of Plaintiff. Pursuant to the WBO’s own binding rules and

regulations, neither Mr. Smith nor Mr. Thompson had the merits to

be considered the two Best Classified Contenders Available instead

of Plaintiff.

57. By declaring Mr. Liam Smith and Mr. John Thompson the

two Best Classified Contenders Available instead of Plaintiff, the

WBO did not abide to, and violated, the objective and consistent

written criteria for the rating of professional boxers, as

developed, approved and issued by the ABC.

58. Mr. Smith defeated Mr. Thompson on October 2015 and won

the WBO Junior Middleweight champion. Plaintiff re-entered the

rankings in September 2015. The WBO had Plaintiff ranked as the

No. 3 contender as of the October 2015 rankings.

59. When questioned by media sources, the WBO indicated that

Plaintiff’s disappearance from the rankings was “an oversight”.

Furthermore, in direct communications, the WBO indicated any

15
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 16 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
concerns were resolved by Plaintiff being re-included in the

rankings in September 2015.

60. In actuality, the WBO disregarded its rules and

regulations in exchange for financial payments from English

promoter Frank Warren, whose financial clout was such that the WBO

fraudulently showed no regard whatsoever for its own rules,

regulations, or any form of ethics to prevent Plaintiff from

obtaining an earned championship fight.

61. As a result, Plaintiff lost at a minimum a purse of over

$80,000 which likely would have been substantially larger given

his reputation in the sport and ability to obtain a television

market in the United States for hits fights.

62. Likewise, the WBO’s actions, which deprived Plaintiff of

his earned championship bout, foreclosed a window of opportunity

for plaintiff to derive income related to being a world boxing

champion including, but not limited to, substantially higher

purses for bouts and commercial endorsements.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF THE MUHAMMAD ALI BOXING REFORM ACT

63. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 62 as if

fully set forth herein.

64. Congress passed the Ali Act to protect the rights and

welfare of professional boxers.

16
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 17 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
65. The WBO is legally required to strictly comply with the

Muhammad Ali Act.

66. The Muhammad Ali Act required the WBO, as a Sanctioning

Organization, to abide and follow the guidelines for objective and

consistent written criteria for the ratings of professional boxers

established by the Association of Boxing Commissions. 15 U.S.C. §

6307(c)(a).

67. The Muhammad Ali Act further requires Sanctioning

Organizations, like defendant WBO, to “provide to the boxer a

written explanation of the organization’s criteria, its rating of

the boxer, and the rationale or basis for its rating (including a

response to any specific questions submitted by the boxer); and

submit a copy of its explanation to the Association of Boxing

Commissions. 15 U.S.C. § 6307(c)(b).

68. Under the Muhammad Ali Act, Sanctioning Organizations

must also, with respect to a change in the rating of a boxer

previously rated by such organization in the top 10 boxers, “post

a copy, within 7 days of such change, on its Internet website or

home page, if any, including an explanation of such change, for a

period of not less than 30 days; and provide a copy of the rating

change and explanation to an association to which at least a

majority of the State boxing commissions belong”. 15 U.S.C. §

6307(c)(b)(1)(2).

17
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 18 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
69. As set forth fully above, the WBO did not follow

objective criteria, as mandated by the Muhammad Ali Act, in the

rankings for the 154 pounds weight division for the months of July

and August 2015, with respect to Plaintiff.

70. The WBO took Plaintiff completely out of the 154 pound

division rankings for the months of July and August 2015.

71. The WBO failed to provide Plaintiff with a written

explanation expressing its criteria for taking Plaintiff out from

the July and August 2015 rankings, nor did it notified such written

explanation to the ABC.

72. The WBO did not post on its website the reasons for

Plaintiff’s disappearance from the WBO rankings in July and August

2015 within and during the term established in the Muhammad Ali

Act.

73. The WBO violated the guidelines for objective and

consistent written criteria for the ratings of professional boxers

established by the Association of Boxing Commissions, and thus the

Muhammad Ali Act, when it ranked Mr. Liam Smith and/or Mr. John

Thompson higher than Plaintiff.

74. As such, the WBO has repeatedly and intentionally

violated the Muhammad Ali Act.

75. As noted above, Plaintiff has suffered economic injury

as a result of the WBO’s repeated violations of the Muhammad Ali

Act because, if the WBO had kept Plaintiff in his duly earned

18
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 19 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
ranking, Plaintiff would have fought for the WBO 154 pound world

championship instead of Mr. Smith and/or Mr. Thompson. By depriving

Plaintiff of his earned championship bout, the WBO foreclosed a

window of financial and goodwill opportunities that are entailed

in the prestige of being a world boxing champion.

76. Additionally, by being taken completely out of the

rankings for the months of July and August 2015 by the WBO,

Plaintiff has suffered economic injury because such a sudden

disappearance from the rankings of a recognized Sanctioning

Organization eroded and damaged his professional goodwill,

prestige and marketing value.

77. As such, the WBO is liable to Plaintiff for damages under

the Muhammad Ali Act. 15 U.S.C. § 6309(d).

78. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount estimated in no

less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00).

79. In addition, under the Muhammad Ali Act, Plaintiff is

entitled to the recovery of all court costs and reasonable

attorneys' fees and expenses, along with interest and such other

and further relief the Court deems just, proper and equitable. 15

U.S.C. § 6309(d).

COUNT II

DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

FRAUD

19
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 20 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
80. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 79 as if

fully set forth herein.

81. Article 1077 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A.

3052, in its pertinent part, states as follows:

§ 3052. Right to rescind mutual obligations

The right to rescind the obligations is considered as
implied in mutual ones, in case one of the obligated
persons does not comply with what is incumbent upon him.
The person prejudiced may choose between exacting the
fulfilment of the obligation or its rescission, with
indemnity for damages and payment of interest in either
case. He may also demand the rescission, even after
having requested its fulfilment, should the latter
appear impossible.
The court shall order the rescission demanded, unless
there are sufficient causes authorizing it to fix a
period.

82. The WBO Constitution, Rules and Regulations constitute

binding contracts between the WBO and Plaintiff Austin Trout.

83. Since the privilege of membership requires Members to

abide by the governing rules and regulations of the WBO, and other

WBO mandates, since the terms of the WBO Constitution, Rules and

Regulations can be unilaterally and arbitrarily changed and

amended by the WBO, and since the provisions of these Constitution,

Rules and Regulations are not subject to any kind of negotiation

between the WBO and its Members, the WBO’s Constitution, Rules and

Regulations constitute an adhesion contract.

84. Under the referenced binding contracts, the WBO had a

duty to abide by the precepts of the Muhammad Ali Act including,

20
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 21 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
but not limited to, the sole use of the guidelines for objective

and consistent written criteria for the ratings of professional

boxers established by the Association of Boxing Commissions.

85. Under the referenced binding contracts, the WBO had a

duty to rank Plaintiff in the 154 pound division rankings in the

months of July and August 2015.

86. Under the referenced binding contracts, the WBO had a

duty to rank Plaintiff among the top four (4) boxers ranked in the

154 pound division rankings in the months of July and August 2015.

87. Under the referenced binding contracts, once the 154

pound championship was declared vacant in July, 2015, the WBO had

a duty to declare Plaintiff one of the two Best Classified

Contenders Available.

88. Under the referenced binding contracts, the WBO had a

duty to order Plaintiff and the other Best Classified Contenders

Available to negotiate a contract.

89. Under the referenced binding contracts, the WBO had a

duty to, in case negotiations between Plaintiff and the other Best

Classified Contender Available failed, order a purse bid.

90. Under the referenced binding contracts, the WBO had a

duty to order a championship bout between Plaintiff and the other

Best Classified Contender Available.

91. The WBO has breached each and every of its contractual

duties towards Plaintiff, as described in Paragraphs 82 through 87

21
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 22 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
and, as such, shall indemnify Plaintiff for the damages suffered

because of this breach. 31 L.P.R.A. 3052.

92. The referenced indemnification includes, not only the

value of Plaintiff’s economic loss, but that of the future earnings

Plaintiff lost due to the WBO’s breach of its contractual duties.

93. As a result of the WBO’s breach of its contractual

duties, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount estimated in no

less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00).

COUNT III

FRAUD

94. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if

fully set forth herein.

95. The WBO has solicited and accepted financial

remuneration from promoters and/or managers to fix ratings to give

certain boxers an opportunity to fight for a title that its

regulations would not otherwise allow.

96. This fraudulent pattern of unfair trade practices has

victimized countless professional boxers as well as the integrity

of the sport itself, particularly in this case as it relates to

Plaintiff.

97. The WBO falsely represented to Plaintiff that if a title

is declared vacant, the two Best Classified Contenders Available

are allowed to fight for the vacant title.

22
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 23 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
98. The WBO falsely represented to Plaintiff through his

rankings status as of June 2015 that would fight for the vacant

title.

99. These representations were material.

100. These misrepresentations were made with the intent to

induce Plaintiff’s reliance.

101. Plaintiff detrimentally relied upon Defendants’

misrepresentation.

102. Defendant’s fraud and fraudulent inducement has caused

Plaintiff to suffer damage. Plaintiff has suffered damage from

Defendant’s actionable fraud.

103. Defendant’s fraud was willful, wanton, fraudulent and

malicious.

104. As a result, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount

estimated in no less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00),

Under Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. §

5141.

COUNT IV

NEGLIGENCE

105. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 104 as if

fully set forth herein.

106. The WBO negligently took Plaintiff out of the 154 pound

divisional rankings without any lawful justification.

23
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 24 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
107. The WBO negligently declared two fighters that were not

Plaintiff as the two Best Classified Contenders Available and

negligently ordered a championship fight for the WBO 154 pound

world championship between them.

108. Defendant’s actions have caused Plaintiff to suffer

damage. Plaintiff has suffered damage from Defendant’s actionable

negligence.

109. As a result, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount

estimated in no less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00),

Under Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. §

5141.

PRAYER OF RELIEF

110. Entry of a judgment pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 6309(d),

declaring that the WBO, by its actions, has violated the Muhammad

Ali Boxing Reform Act in the way and manner herein stated and

awarding monetary damages in an amount of no less than Ten million

Dollars ($10,000,000.00).

111. Entry of a judgment pursuant to 31 L.P.R.A. 3052

declaring that the WBO, by its actions, has breached its

contractual duties with regards to Plaintiff and awarding monetary

damages in an amount of no less than Ten million Dollars

($10,000,000.00).

112. Entry of a judgment pursuant to 31 L.P.R.A. 5141

declaring that the WBO, by its actions, has caused damages to

24
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 25 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
Plaintiff and awarding monetary damages in an amount of no less

than Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000.00).

113. Entry of Judgment for the recovery of all court costs

and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, along with interest

and such other and further relief the Court deems just, proper and

equitable. 15 U.S.C. § 6309(d).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment for damages, all court

costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, along with

interests and such other and further relief the Court deems just,

proper and equitable.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this same date, we electronically

filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF

system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel

of record.

In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 29th day of August, 2017.

25
Case 3:17-cv-01953-PAD Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 26 of 26
Amended Complaint
Civil No. 17-1953 (PAD)
/S MIGUEL J. ORTEGA NÚNEZ
Miguel J. Ortega Núnez
USDC 220609
CANCIO, NADAL, RIVERA &
DÍAZ,PSC
PO Box 364966
San Juan, PR 00936-4966
403 Ave. Muñoz Rivera
Hato Rey, PR 00918-3345
Tel. (787) 767-9625
Fax (787) 622-3461
Email: mortega@cnrd.com

26