WWE is looking to dismiss MLW's lawsuit.
In January, MLW filed a lawsuit against WWE over alleged attempts to monopolize the wrestling market and undermine the competition. WWE was officially served with the lawsuit on January 14.
In an update, WWE has filed a motion to dismiss the complain, arguing MLW failed to please "a facially sustainable relevant market, monopoly power or anticompetitive conduct, or antitrust injury." WWE also argues, "MLW's claim for intentional interference with contractual relations is unsupported by factual allegations, and what allegations MW pleads are entirely implausible."
Finally, WWE argues that the case should be dismissed is a resident to California, which is where the lawsuit is filed.
The filing is 35 pages.
Summary (courtesy of Brandon Thurston):
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 29. 2022. or as soon thereafter as this matter
may be heard, either in Courtroom 4 of this Court, located at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose.
California 95113, or by videoconference or teleconference (if the Court prefers), Defendant World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE") will and hereby does move the Court for an order granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff MLW Media LLC's ("MLW") Complaint with prejudice.
The grounds for dismissal are as follows:First, WWE moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss MLW'.
federal antitrust claim because MW failed to plausibly plead (1) a facially sustainable relevant
market, (2) monopoly power or anticompetitive conduct, or (3) antitrust injury. WWE further
moves to dismiss MLW's remaining state law claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over them if the federal antitrust claim
is dismissed.Second, WWE moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(bY6) to dismiss all
state law claims should this Court exercises jurisdiction over them. MLW's claim for intentional
interference with contractual relations is unsupported by factual allegations, and what allegations
MW pleads are entirely implausible. MLW's claim for intentional interference with prospective
economic advantage fails because MLW does not allege that WWE knew about MLW's
negotiations to sell a third party first-run programming, nor does MW plausibly allege that
WWE's alleged single communication with the third party influenced its decision not to purchase
MLW's content. Finally, MLW's unfair competition claim fails because (1) it is not tethered to
some other viable antitrust or tort claim, and (2) MW lacks Article III and statutory standing to
assert such a claim.Finally, WWE moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) to dismiss
MLW's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction because neither party is a resident of California,
no harm specific to California is alleged, and none of the alleged misconduct took place in
California.
In the full filing, WWE referenced the success of AEW and IMPACT as proof that they didn't violate the Sherman Antitrust Act:
“MLW fails to plausibly allege that WWE violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. MLW provides no facts to support its naked assertion that there is a relevant product market for the sale of broadcasting rights for professional wrestling programs to national networks, cable, and streaming services. Even if such a market somehow existed, MLW fails to plausibly allege that WWE possesses monopoly power within it. To the contrary, its complaint is bereft of any facts suggesting that WWE could possibly hold any power over the dozens, if not hundreds, of networks, cable, and streaming services with which WWE has no commercial relationships. Indeed, AEW’s and Impact’s successful sales of broadcast rights show just the opposite. Finally, MLW’s Sherman Act claim fails for lack of antitrust injury. The antitrust laws protect competition, not competitors, yet MLW fails to allege any plausible facts demonstrating harm to the competitive process. The failure to plead antitrust injury is absolutely fatal to MLW’s complaint and, indeed, independently warrants dismissal. “
MLW has until April 22 to oppose WWE’s motion to dismiss. WWE has until May 16 to file a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. MLW is seeking a jury trial.
“Of course WWE is scrambling to dismiss. They don’t want this thing to go to court. I look forward to that opportunity,” Bauer told PWInsider.
Fightful will continue to update fans on the lawsuit as more is known.
