Shamrock apparently claimed that certain contractual provisions of his final agreement had been violated; The court, however, disagreed.
Below is the official statement released by the UFC:
Zuffa, LLC, doing business as the Ultimate Fighting Championship® (“UFC®”), was awarded a legal victory today against former champion, Ken Shamrock. Shamrock, who claimed Zuffa had violated certain contractual provisions of his final fight agreement, was demanding several hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation he claimed was due and owing from the UFC.
Following a trial before the Honorable Susan H. Johnson, the Court entered a sixteen page written decision concluding that Ken Shamrock was to “take nothing by way of its Complaint filed April 15, 2008, and judgment is rendered in favor of Zuffa, LLC dba the Ultimate Fighting Championship.” Specifically, Judge Johnson ruled that Zuffa (1) did not breach the contract; (2) that the contract should be interpreted in manner advocated by Zuffa; and (3) that, in any event, Shamrock and his attorney/agent Rod Donohoo waived any purported breach by Zuffa.
The UFC was again represented by their trial counsel Donald J. Campbell and J. Colby Williams of the Las Vegas firm Campbell & Williams. Asked for a comment, Messrs. Campbell and Williams responded as follows:
“Zuffa has issued a clear directive that we are to pursue every legal remedy to ensure that the UFC’s contracts are scrupulously honored and defended. The resulting judgment in this case is just one more example of the UFC’s resolve to vigorously vindicate its contractual rights in the courts.”
When asked if further proceedings would be likely in this case, Messrs. Campbell and Williams remarked in the affirmative.
“The UFC has a clear and unambiguous attorney fee clause in all of its contracts with fighters to the effect, that in the event a fighter loses any contractual challenge in court, that fighter will be responsible for paying our fees. Accordingly, we will be filing a motion to seek recovery of all of our expenses and fees which were occasioned by this lawsuit.”