In an update on the lawsuit brought by FloSports Inc (the owners of FloSlam and several other entities) against EVOLVE Wrestling’s parent company WWNLive Inc back in September, where FloSports are seeking $1 million in damages, alleging that WWNLive, run by Sal Hamaoui and Gabe Sapolsky had robbed FloSports by providing false information that led to the streaming provider paying inflated prices for the WWNLive content, a report from notes that on November 13th, WWNLive filed a motion, requesting that the lawsuit be dismissed, citing that the suit was filed in a venue (in this case Texas) that lack jurisdiction over WWNLive.

According to the report, FloSports argued that the case should be heard in Texas, since they were doing business with WWNLive in that State and that in their 22-page filing, WWNLive argued that their business was based in Florida, as are its business records and bank accounts and that their only dealings in Texas were WWNLive President Sal Hamaoui travelling to Texas in October 2016 and January 2017, the first trip to meet with FloSports during the courtship period and the latter to sign the deal with FloSports. WWNLive also noted multiple times in the filing that FloSports had initiated their business relationship, that WWNLive were not contractually obligated to focus their business in Texas and that out of the 53 events that they promoted under their deal with FloSports, only two were held in Texas, with the majority of events held in Florida. WWNLive also argue that the court case being held in Texas would be a hardship for the company, as those with working knowledge of the company live in Florida (Hamaoui) and Massachusetts (Sapolsky) and that holding the case in Texas would force them to travel regularly to the State, a venue that could not be considered a home venue for them, as they have no holdings or business dwellings or connections to the community there.

The report notes that WWNLive also argue that FloSports have failed to actually state a claim regarding their allegation that there has been negligent misrepresentation on the part of WWNLive. FloSports lawsuit alleges that WWNLive negligently or otherwise misrepresented the number of fans that were purchasing pay-per-view and video-on-demand access to their events and that when pressed for the data that backed up WWNLive’s spreadsheet of viewership, WWNLive originally claimed that it had lost or deleted that information and that ultimately, WWNLive sent records listing many subscribers more than once and including purchasers of DVD’s instead of broadcast services and that even with that artificial inflation of viewership, the numbers that WWNLive attempted to account for were far less than those represented in its initial spreadsheet and thus, WWNLive induced FloSports to pay it hundreds of thousands of dollars based on data that was not only inaccurate and unreliable, but plain false. WWNLive responded to that by denying that there were any falsehoods in the spreadsheet data that FloSports received from them, noting that the data was pulled from and compiled by a now-defunct third-party company named Fineline Hosting that were based in Florida.

The report states that WWNLive are arguing that since the data was compiled by a now-defunct Florida company and was e-mailed to FloSports from Florida, that there is no actual merit to them claiming negligent misrepresentation in the state of Texas, even if there was indeed inaccurate information. WWNLive also argue that the negligent misrepresentation was just a repackaged claim that was derivative of FloSports’ allegations that WWNLive had breached their contract with FloSports who had claimed negligently or otherwise, that WWNLive misrepresented the number of fans purchasing pay-per-view and video-on-demand access to their fighting events, that WWNLive did not use reasonable care in obtaining or communicating the information, that the misrepresentations and omissions were material, that a reasonable person would attach importance to and be induced to act on WWNLive’s representations and that WWNLive had reason to expect that FloSports would rely on its representations and that FloSports did indeed, reasonably and justifiably rely upon them.

The report further notes that FloSports allege that they have invested time and money that it will never recover in the market and that since viewership drives their subscription-base and advertising revenue that WWNLive’s misrepresentation robbed FloSports. WWNLive responded to that citing that Texas law is unequivocal, however that benefit of the bargain damages are not recoverable for a claim of negligent misrepresentation and claim that FloSports’ own language in the lawsuit admits such, therefore the negligent misrepresentation count should be dropped.