You are on page 1of 2

Case 1:19-cv-07912-PKC Document

LAW OFFICES 14 Filed 10/08/19 Page 1 of 2



'/~ .;._~
October 4, 2019


Honorable P. Kevin Castel A- . .. /.,, ~ D~u,ei>_
United States District Judge / I J-1"~- .
SouthemDistrictofNewYork ~~
United States Courthouse -r- A n ___ • _ / - fi
500 Pearl St. ~ , ~ - l ~'-
New York, NY 10007-1312 ~ t:>-,{~
Re: Matchroom Boxing Limited v. TGB Promotions LLC e t ~ De._.~
CaseNo. l:19-cv-07912 · 0 ~ ~ , . , ..
~. - L
Dear Judge Castel: z;- ~~ ..
We represent IBF No. 1 Mandatory Challenger, Kubrat Pulev. t) IZ.P ell..t?IJ
0 5
I apologize for the unusual nature of this request. , ~

After Andy Ruiz defeated the then-reigning unified IBF / ~ B r {World U5/).J
Heavyweight Champion Anthony Joshua on June 1, 2019 at Madison Square Garden in a
huge upset, Ruiz, as the new champion, had an obligation under the IBF Rules to defend
tV -
3- /,f
his title against Pulev in Ruiz' next bout without any intervening bouts. As you may recall,
Matchroom sued Ruiz to enforce an immediate rematch clause in the contract (the "POS")
that was filed as Exhibit A to the Complaint (ECF No. 4), but which was provisionally
sealed by the Court (ECF No. 6) (the "Sealing Order").

Ruiz requested an exception from the IBF to do the rematch which it

J granted. We have appealed that decision and a hearing is scheduled for next Thursday,
October 10, 2019, in Newark at the IBF's offices. We contend that the POS contains a
prohibited rematch clause under IBF Rule 3.B which provides as follows:

No contract for a Championship contest shall contain any

clause or any provision, whatsoever, guaranteeing or in any
way assuring or promising either contestant a return
Case 1:19-cv-07912-PKC Document 14 Filed 10/08/19 Page 2 of 2
Honorable P. Kevin Castel
October 4, 2019

Championship contest where such clause or provision

interferes with the mandatory defense of a title. 1

We also contend that the POS contains a provision that obligates Ruiz to
request an exception from the IBF and that Matchroom/Joshua agreed to pay the $20,000
exception fee. Under the IBF Rule 11, only the reigning champion has the right to request
an exception, but Rule 3.B. infers that the champion must not be under a contractual
obligation to do so. There are a number of other documents which were filed with the
Court under seal which we believe may contain evidence that Ruiz was effectively forced
by Matchroom to seek the exception due to the prohibited rematch clause in the POS.

In the Court's Sealing Order, the Court noted:

'Plaintiff ha$ failed to adGquately demonstrate ~I lhe p;rasomp'tlon ,of pubUe a,ccess ooght riot ctmitrol.
See, Lugosch v. Pyrarid C::-0. of Ooo-ndaga, 425 F.3cl 110, 1 lS~W ,(2tl• Ck 200.Sj.
fhe Court will dreelde Iha, s.eidlng issue after heatli;;g from dl;)fuf!ld,'atitlil il'I writing by August 30.

The case was voluntarily dismissed on August 26, 2019, prior to the August
30, 2019 date set by the Court in the Sealing Order. We do not have any right to discovery
with the IBF and therefore having the POS is very important for our client to establish that
Ruiz was acting as Joshua's agent in requesting the exception from the IBF due to his
contractual rematch obligation under the POS.

Since Plaintiff has failed to adequately demonstrate why the documents

should remain sealed and Defendants have not sought to keep the documents under seal,
we would respectfully request that the Court order that the documents be unsealed.

Respectfully submitted,

Isl John Wirt

John S. Wirt

1 02APR2014/images/pdfs/IBFChampionshipContestRules0 l