Page 3
C.A. Upholds $2.4 Million Default Judgment Against Mayweather
Opinion Says Penalty Is Proper for Single Violation of Order to Compel Deposition Attendance Due to Pattern of Behavior
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Five of this district’s Court of Appeal yesterday affirmed a $2,376,978.32 default judgment former professional boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr., holding that terminating sanctions were an appropriate remedy for a single violation of a court order requiring him to appear for a deposition where his actions as a whole, in response to formal and informal attempts to compel discovery, demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance.
The court also held that the sanctions are appropriate even absent a finding that the defendant personally knew of the order because the party purposely placed himself in a position where he was unlikely to be fully informed by having never met his lawyer and appointing a middleman to communicate with counsel.
The dispute arose in a case brought by Zinni Media Concept Limited against Mayweather Jr.—who attained world championships in 15 weight categories—after the celebrity allegedly breached an agreement with the company to make appearances in Africa at events organized by Zinni.
Mayweather had never met his attorney, Luiey G. Haddad of the San Diego real estate law firm Equity Legal LLP, and communicated with his lawyer through a marketing manager, Brent Johnson. All mailings relating to the court proceedings were sent to Mayweather’s business address in Las Vegas, at Johnson’s direction.
Last-Minute Email
Mayweather failed to appear for a scheduled deposition on May 21, 2022, notifying Zinni through an email from Haddad six minutes before the meeting was set to begin. The email indicated that “a business matter arose that requires [Mayweather’s] full attention today.”
After the non-appearance, Equity Legal filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, citing an inability to communicate with its client following the missed deposition.
On May 16, 2022, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Huey P. Cotton granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel Mayweather’s appearance at a deposition and warned that failure to appear could result in terminating sanctions. After the defendant again failed to show up, Cotton issued an order granting terminating sanctions and relieved Equity Legal as counsel.
On Oct. 21, 2022, a default judgment was entered against Mayweather. In April of the following year, Mayweather moved to set aside the default on the grounds of excusable neglect, claiming he was unaware of the judgment.
In July 2023, Cotton denied the motion to set aside the default, finding that Mayweather’s unconcerned approach to the lawsuit was not excusable neglect.
Justice Carl H. Moor wrote the unpublished opinion affirming the judgment. Acting Presiding Justice Lamar Baker and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Angela J. Davis, sitting by assignment, joined in the opinion.
Terminating Sanctions
Moor noted that a decision to order terminating sanctions may be appropriate where there is a willful violation and a pattern of abuse such that less severe remedial actions were unlikely to produce compliance with discovery rules. Mayweather argues that there is no pattern of abuse as his only noncompliance with discovery procedures related to failing to appear for a deposition.
The defendant also contends that no history of abuse can be shown because his actions only violated a single order—the May 16, 2022 order requiring him to appear—and a one-time failure to obey cannot justify such an extreme remedy.
Unpersuaded, Moor wrote:
“In imposing sanctions…a trial court considers the defendant’s actions as a whole—noncompliance with both formal and informal attempts to compel discovery is taken into account….Here, the record amply supports a pattern of refusal to submit to a deposition.”
He continued:
“The court…ordered an agreed-to deposition date of March 21, 2022. This gave Mayweather three and a half months’ notice of the date. Although Mayweather confirmed with his counsel multiple times that he would appear, minutes before the deposition was to take place, Mayweather informed Zinni and his own counsel that he would not be attending because a business matter that arose over the weekend needed his attention.”
He added:
“On April 14, 2022, Zinni renewed its motion to compel Mayweather’s deposition and sought monetary and terminating sanctions….[T]he court issued its May 16, 2022 order requiring Mayweather to pay sanctions and appear for his deposition within 30 days, instructing Zinni to file a declaration if Mayweather did not comply and indicating Mayweather would then be subject to terminating sanctions. Again, Mayweather failed to make himself available for deposition or pay the monetary sanction. After Zinni filed the anticipated declaration informing the court of these failures, Mayweather did not respond in any manner until nearly a year later on April 21, 2023, after the court imposed terminating sanctions and entered default. The record supports a finding that Mayweather had a history of abusing the discovery process.”
Willful Violation
Mayweather contends that his violation could not have been willful as there was no finding that he was personally aware of any obligations under the May 16, 2022 order. Rejecting this characterization, Moor said:
“Mayweather purposefully placed himself in a position where he was unlikely to get complete information, if any, regarding the litigation. He declared that he had never met his lawyer and did not know who represented him. If Mayweather’s arguments at the hearing on the motion to set aside the default are to be believed, he did not even ensure that his attorney had his mailing address. His sole contact with his lawyer was through Johnson, an informal liaison who ‘at one point provided [him] with updates regarding the lawsuit.’ Mayweather was aware that his deposition had been scheduled repeatedly and that he had not appeared.”
The jurist concluded:
“Mayweather’s orchestrated ignorance constitutes willfulness. To the extent that he was uninformed regarding his lawsuit and obligations, he chose to be.”
Lesser Sanctions
Moor pointed out that a court has broad discretion in choosing the appropriate sanction. Code of Civil Procedure §2025.450(h) provides that “[i]f that party…fails to obey an order compelling [deposition] attendance…the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of…a terminating sanction.”
The justice dismissed Mayweather’s challenge to the order on the basis that it did not identify the statutory authority under which the sanctions were imposed, saying:
“Zinni filed its second motion to compel Mayweather’s deposition and requesting monetary and terminating sanctions pursuant to…[Code of Civil Procedure §]…2025.450….A hearing was held on May 16, 2022, at which the parties presented arguments. Following the hearing, the trial court issued a minute order that detailed Mayweather’s failures to comply with discovery, and granted the motion pursuant to section 2025.450. The court ordered Mayweather to pay monetary sanctions for his failure to appear at the deposition and to appear for deposition within 30 days. If Mayweather failed to comply…the court would consider terminating sanctions. Mayweather failed to appear….As a result, the trial court ordered terminating sanctions on August 3, 2022.”
Excusable Neglect
Moor rejected Mayweather’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to set aside the default pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473 which provides that “[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party…from a judgment…taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”
He remarked:
“Mayweather…argues that he was unaware of the trial court’s May 16, 2022 order, citing the breakdown of communication between Johnson and Haddad. However, the neglect the trial court found inexcusable was not the breakdown of communication between Mayweather’s informal representative and his attorney, it was Mayweather’s decision to take a cavalier approach to the lawsuit.”
The case is Zinni Media Concept Limited v. Mayweather, B334403.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company