A judge who previously issued a nearly $460,000 judgment against former boxing champion Shane Mosley and a company he owned with his sister Monday modified his decision to find the sibling liable for misrepresentation in the promotion of a mixed martial arts fight card and assess damages against her for more than $280,000.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Sotelo heard evidence beginning in 2021 in the nonjury trial of a countersuit brought by Swarm Entertainment LLC against Mosley; his sister, Cerena Mosley; and the company she owned and controlled, Mosley Showdown Promotions.

Swarm had hoped to use Mosley’s image in the promotion of a mixed martial arts event prior to Super Bowl XLIX in 2015 until the fighter allegedly and suddenly withdrew his consent late and hurt advertising.

Sotelo granted judgment on Aug. 3 against Mosley for $179,840 and $279,840 against Mosley Promotions. Cerena Mosley herself was found not liable.

Mosley moved for a new trial on the part of the case against him and Swarm asked for a retrial on the issue of his sister’s liability.

In his revised decision, the judge denied Mosley’s retrial motion, but said Swarm attorneys convinced him that corporate directors such as Cerena Mosley are jointly liable with a company such as Mosley Showdown Productions and that the boxer’s sister could be joined as a defendant if she personally directed or participated in unlawful conduct.

Swarm proved that Cerena Mosley, acting as a director of Mosley Showdown Productions, committed fraud by making false statements to Swarm to induce the company into entering the agreement to promote what was dubbed the “Super Brawl,” Sotelo wrote.

Mosley had started the litigation by suing Swarm in February 2016 for allegedly using his name and image to promote “Super Brawl” without his permission, but Sotelo dismissed Mosley’s complaint in 2018 after ruling that the boxer’s participation in a promotional video for the event demonstrated his consent.

Super Brawl was held at the Phoenix Zoo on Jan. 30, 2015, two days before Super Bowl XLIX in Glendale, Arizona. Swarm hoped to capitalize on the popularity of the Super Bowl and the large numbers of sports fans and celebrities who descend on the host city for the weekend.

Swarm intended that Super Brawl would be broadcast as a live, pay-per-view event, but because the company lacked experience in promoting MMA events, it entered an agreement with Mosley Promotions, which had experience putting together and promoting MMA fights, according to Mogel.

During trial, Swarm executive Wayne Mogel testified that Mosley had a large fan base and that the company was hoping to capitalized on it. Mogel said he considered the 51-year-old Mosley to have been, in his prime, one of the best boxers of his generation.

Mosley Promotions’ most important obligation was to ensure that the boxer appeared at Super Brawl and that he consented to Swarm’s use of his name and likeness to promote the event, Mogel said. Swarm would not have entered into the agreement with Mosley Promotions if Cerena Mosley had not promised that her brother would attend and allow his name and likeness to be used to promote the event, Mogel testified.

The most important promotional tool available to Swarm was to be a short video that would air on all of the pay-per-view providers in advance of the event, Mogel said. The video was taped at the Pomona home of Mosley’s father, Jack Mosley, in January 2015, according to Mogel.

In the video, Mosley states, “In a family tradition of world class combat sports — join us at the Phoenix Zoo for Super BrawlShowdown.”

One week before the event, Mosley allegedly contacted Swarm and maintained for the fist time that he did not consent to the use of his name and likeness, prompting Swarm to pull its advertising for Super Brawl. As a result, no commercials were run on pay-per-view during the days before the event and viewers were unaware it was available for viewing, according to the countersuit.

Mosley’s lawyers threatened the pay-per-view broadcasters with litigation if they used his name or likeness, an action that was “mean spirited and legally unjustified,” according to Sotelo.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *