Courthouse News Service

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA English Bouie Fisher : : v. : Civil Action No. : Jury Trial Demanded Bernard Hopkins : COMPLAINT Plaintiff, English Bouie Fisher, brings a series of claims against Defendant, Bernard Hopkins, of which the following is a statement. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, English Bouie Fisher, is an adult resident of Berlin, New Jersey. 2. Defendant, Bernard Hopkins, is an adult resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Delaware. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted in this Complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) because this is a civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States. 4. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(a) because the defendant resides in this judicial district, a substantial part of the events and omissions Courthouse News Service giving rise to this case occurred in this judicial district, and/or the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district at the time this case is commenced.

2 FACTS COUNT I 5. Bouie Fisher has been involved in professional boxing as a fighter and trainer since He trained Hopkins from 1989 to 2002 and from 2003 to Under Fisher s tutelage, Hopkins won five (5) boxing titles and successfully defended them numerous times on his way to compiling a record. In recognition of his skill and expertise as a trainer, Fisher was named the World Boxing Hall of Fame s Trainer of the Year for Hopkins has acknowledged the invaluable contribution Fisher made to his success. In an interview with Aladdin Freeman in 2003, Hopkins said, The main thing for me is that Bouie Fisher has been there 99% of my boxing career since I was 0-1, a loser without Bouie Fisher and he helped me recognize the talent that I had in myself. Professionally you could say I wasn t a winner without Bouie fisher. 7. Despite having achieved extraordinary success for Hopkins as his trainer, in September 2002, Fisher was impelled to file a breach-of-contract lawsuit against Hopkins to collect approximately $255,000 in trainer s fees that Hopkins had refused to pay him for Hopkins title bouts against Keith Holmes, Felix Trinidad and Carl Daniels. Fisher and Hopkins settled that lawsuit out of court. 8. Surely owing to the success he achieved with Fisher as his trainer, in 2003 Hopkins and Fisher reconciled. On November 13, 2003, in Miami, Florida, Fisher and Hopkins entered into a contract pursuant to which, among other things, Hopkins agreed to pay ENGLISH BOUIE FISHER 15% of all my gross purses starting with the William Joppy fight on December 13 th A true and correct copy of the November

3 13, 2003 contract (the Contract ) is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof. The Contract was witnessed by James Fisher and Andre Fisher and was notarized by a Notary Public of the State of Florida. The Contract further stated that [a]ll terms of agreement are not to be disclosed. 9. On September 18, 2004, Hopkins fought and defeated Oscar de la Hoya. On information and belief, based upon the Agreement for Two Championship Bouts dated February 6, 2004 between Top Rank, Inc. and Bernard Hopkins (the Top Rank Agreement ), an unsigned copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof, for the de la Hoya bout, Hopkins was to receive a guaranteed minimum purse of $8 million plus $7.00 for each pay-per-view ( PPV ) home in excess of 800,000 PPV homes. On information and belief, the Hopkins-de la Hoya bout generated total PPV revenues of at least $56 million. Thus, for the de la Hoya bout, pursuant to the Contract, Fisher was entitled to receive $1.2 million plus 15% of PPV revenues paid to Hopkins. 10. In contravention and breach of the Contract, after the de la Hoya bout, Hopkins paid Fisher only $1,129,755, and no portion of the PPV revenues paid to Hopkins under the Top Rank Agreement. Fisher is owed $70,255 plus 15% of PPV revenues paid to Hopkins under the Top Rank Agreement. Despite demand, Hopkins has refused to pay Fisher the amount due and owing under the Contract. 11. On February 19, 2005, Hopkins fought and defeated Howard Eastman. This bout was not a PPV bout. Hopkins gross purse for the Eastman bout was $3,408,800. Thus, pursuant to the Contract, Fisher was entitled to receive $511,320.

4 12. In contravention and breach of the Contract, after the Eastman bout, Hopkins paid Fisher only $401,329. Fisher is owed $109,991. Despite demand, Hopkins has refused to pay Fisher the amount due and owing under the Contract. 13. On July 16, 2005, Hopkins fought and was defeated by the late Jermain Taylor. This bout was a PPV bout. Although Fisher was told that Hopkins gross purse for the Taylor bout was $2 million, Fisher never was shown any written agreement to confirm that representation. However, on information and belief, Hopkins gross purse for the Taylor bout was approximately $7 million. Thus, pursuant to the Contract, Fisher was entitled to receive 15% of Hopkins gross purse, the sum of either $300,000 or $1.05 million. 14. In contravention and breach of the Contract, after the Taylor bout, Hopkins paid Fisher only $279,750. Fisher is owed at least $20,250. Despite demand, Hopkins has refused to pay Fisher the amount due and owing under the Contract. 15. After the Taylor bout, through no fault of Fisher s, Hopkins and Fisher parted ways, and thus ended one of the most successful boxer-trainer relationships in boxing history. 16. Under the Contract, Fisher and Hopkins had agreed not to disclose its terms. Despite this clear language, in an article published in The Philadelphia Daily News on December 20, 2005, Hopkins disclosed to Bernard Fernandez, a reporter, checks reflecting payments to Fisher under the Contract. This disclosure constituted another breach of the Contract by Hopkins, for which Fisher is entitled to damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, English Bouie Fisher, hereby demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant, Bernard Hopkins, on Count I for the sum of at least

5 $200,496, plus interest, and such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT II 17. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference as if set forth in full the averments of paragraphs 1-16, inclusive, of this Complaint. 18. At all times relevant hereto, Hopkins was an employer as defined in the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 Pa.C.S , et seq. (the WPCL ). 19. For purposes of the WPCL, Fisher was Hopkins employee, and the amounts due Fisher under the Contract were wages as defined in the WPCL. 20. Hopkins failure and refusal to pay Fisher the amounts due under the Contract for Fisher s work in connection with the de la Hoya, Eastman and Taylor bouts constitutes a violation of the WPCL. 21. Under the WPCL, in addition to the amounts due under the Contract for his work in connection with the de la Hoya, Eastman and Taylor bouts, Fisher is entitled to liquidated damages of 25% of the amount due. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, English Bouie Fisher, hereby demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant, Bernard Hopkins, on Count II for at least $200,496, plus interest, plus liquidated damages of 25%, and such other and further relief as the court deems appropriate.

6 JURY DEMAND 22. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. Dated: September 18, 2009 Robert T Vance Jr Law Offices of Robert T Vance Jr 1530 Land Title Building 100 South Broad Street Philadelphia PA Attorney for English Bouie Fisher+-