You are on page 1of 3

Case 1:16-cv-04423-ALC-GWG Document 338 Filed 04/24/18 Page 1 of 3

JUDD BURSTEIN, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

JUDD BURSTEIN* 5 COLUMBUS CIRCLE
PETER B. SCHALK** 1790 BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019
TEL: (212) 974-2400
G. WILLIAM BARTHOLOMEW**
FAX: (212) 974-2944
ALI R. JAFFERY** WWW.BURLAW.COM

*ALSO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT 12 OLD HILL FARMS ROAD
**ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW JERSEY April 24, 2018 WESTPORT, CONNECTICUT 06880
TEL: (203) 226-4823

VIA ECF AND EMAIL
The Honorable Andrew L. Carter, Jr.
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007

Re: Wilder et al. v. World of Boxing LLC et aI., No. 16-cv-04423 (ALC) (GWG);
World ofBoxing LLC, et al. v. Wilder, et al., No. 16-cv-04870 (ALC) (GWG)

Dear Judge Carter:

I am a principal of Judd Burstein, P.C., attorneys for Deontay Wilder, DiBella Entertainment,
Inc., and Lou DiBella (collectively, "Plaintiffs" or the "Wilder Parties") in the above-referenced
related cases. I write in response to the letter from counsel for World of Boxing LLC ("WOB") and
Alexander Povetkin ("Povetkin," and collectively with WOB, "Defendants"), seeking entry of final
judgment in Civil Action No. 16-cv-4423 (the "First Action"). (Dkt. No. 337 in the First Action).
By an Order entered October 6,2016, this Court consolidated Civil Action No. 4870 (the "Second
Action") with the First Action for all purposes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). (See Dkt. No. 19
in the First Action). In my letter of yesterday, I explained how entry of judgment in the First Action
was not authorized at this point in time, because in the Second Action, in addition to the claims for
breach of (a) the Bout Agreement, (b) the Escrow Agreement, and (c) the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, which claims were disposed of by Hon. Gabriel W. Gorenstein's decision (see Dkt. No.
331 in the First Action), there remains a claim for defamation that has been stayed.

In response, Defendants rely exclusively upon Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118 (2018), to
contend that a final judgment ought to be entered in the First Action, while the Second Action should
continue until such time as the remaining defamation claims have been adjudicated. Hall does not
support Defendants' position.

In Hall, the Supreme Court addressed a family dispute in which a mother (Ethyl) owned real
property in the Virgin Islands that was managed by her son (Samuel) and his law firm. Ethyl and
Samuel had a falling out, and she placed her real property in trust. Ethyl was the initial trustee, and
she named her daughter (Elsa) as successor trustee. In her capacity as trustee, Ethyl sued Samuel
and his law firm for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, legal malpractice, conversion and unjust
enrichment (the "Trust Action"). Ethyl then died, and Elsa was substituted in as plaintiff in the Trust
Case 1:16-cv-04423-ALC-GWG Document 338 Filed 04/24/18 Page 2 of 3

JUDD BURSTEIN. P. C.

Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr.
April 24, 2018
Page 2

Action in her capacity as successor trustee. Samuel commenced a separate lawsuit against Elsa in
her individual capacity for intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, breach offiduciary duty,
conversion, and tortious interference (the "Individual Action"). The two litigations were
consolidated and went to trial.

In the Individual Action, the jury returned a verdict for Samuel against Elsa in her individual
capacity, but the District Court ordered a new trial. The jury also returned a verdict against Elsa in
her representative capacity in the Trust Action, and she appealed. In Hall, the Supreme Court simply
held that the judgment in the Trust Action - which was entered against Elsa in her capacity as trustee
- was immediately appealable.

Here, by way of contrast, Judge Gorenstein has directed entry of judgment in the First and
Second Actions on the parties' claims sounding in breach of the Bout Agreement and the Escrow
Agreement, as well as breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. These are identical
claims between the same parties for breaches arising out of the exact same contracts. Indeed, the
allegations in support of Defendants' counterclaims for breach of the Bout Agreement, the Escrow
Agreement, and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the First Action, are literally identical
to the allegations in support of their affirmative claims for breaches of those same contracts in the
. Second Action. (Compare Dkt. No. 14 in the First Action at ~~ 81 to 101, with Dkt. No. 30 in the
Second Action, at ~~ 83 to 103). In other words, Defendants asserted redundant claims in two
separate actions, initially by way of counterclaims in the First Action, and then separately by way
of affirmative claims in the Second Action. Nonetheless, Defendants contend that they are entitled
to judgment against the Wilder Parties on one set of identical claims as asserted in the First Action,
while the same claims should apparently lay fallow in the Second Action until after their defamation
claims have been adjudicated.

Hall does not remotely authorize such a procedure. Rather, in Hall, the claims in the Trust
Action were asserted against Elsa in her capacity as successor trustee, while the claims in the
Individual Action were asserted against her in her individual capacity. Moreover, the claims at issue
in the Trust Action in Hall were not identical to the ones in the Individual Action. It would make
no sense and ill-serve judicial economy to grant Defendants' request for entry of two separate
judgments on the same claims in two different cases. To the contrary, such a result would sow
serious confusion before this Court and on. the appellate level, and there is no precedent to support
that outcome.
Case 1:16-cv-04423-ALC-GWG Document 338 Filed 04/24/18 Page 3 of 3

JUDD BURSTEIN, P. C.

Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr.
April 24, 2018
Page 3

Accordingly, Defendants should be required to wait for entry offinaljudgment on the parties'
claims for breach relating to the Bout Agreement and the Escrow Agreement in both the First and
Second Action until the defamation claims have been adjudicated.

~OillS'

Peter B. Schalk

cc: Kent A. Yalowitz, Esq. (via ECF)
Tanya E. Kalivas, Esq. (via ECF)
Carolyn Shanahan, Esq. (via ECF)
The Hon. Gabriel W. Gorenstein (via facsimile)