California Superior Court ruling to allow TGB Promotions to intervene in Paradigm case vs. Pacquiao


Intervenor’s (TGB Promotions, LLC) Motion to Intervene (Motion), filed on 7-26-21 under ROA No. 71, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (d), states, “(1) The court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions is satisfied: [¶] (A) A provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene. [¶] (B) The  person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person’s ability to protect that interest, unless that person’s interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties. [¶] (2) The court may, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if the person has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either parties, or an interest against both.”

Carlsbad Police Officers Association v. City of Carlsbad (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 135, 148 (CPOA), states, “Section 387 recognizes two forms of intervention. The first is compulsory. Under subdivision (d)(1)(B), a trial court ‘shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding’ if that person ‘claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person’s ability to protect that interest, unless that person’s interest is adequately represented by one of the existing parties.’ In other words, to establish a right to mandatory intervention, the nonparty must: (1) show a protectable interest in the subject of the action, (2) demonstrate that the disposition of the action may impair or impede its ability to protect that interest; and (3) demonstrate that its interests are not adequately represented by the existing parties. [Citation.] These criteria are virtually identical to those for compulsory joinder of an indispensable party. [Citation.] [¶] If intervention is not compulsory, leave to intervene may also be granted on permissive grounds. Under section 387, subdivision (d)(2), ‘[t]he court may, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if the person has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both.’ Permissive intervention is appropriate if: ‘(1) the proper procedures have been followed; (2) the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the action; (3) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the litigation; and (4) the reasons for the intervention outweigh any opposition by the parties presently in the action.’ [Citations.]”  City of Malibu v. California Coastal Commission (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 897, 902 (City of Malibu) provides, “ ‘[C]ourts have recognized California Code of Civil Procedure section 387 should be liberally construed in favor of intervention. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Nonetheless, ‘[a] trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to permit intervention. [Citations.]’ [Citations.]”

First, the Intervenor has timely filed this Motion because Plaintiff (Paradigm Sports Management, LLC) recently filed the Complaint on 6-25-21 (ROA No. 2).  The court has not heard any application for a temporary restraining order or motion for a preliminary injunction before Intervenor filed this Motion.  Based on the court’s 7-30-21 Minute Order, the court has scheduled Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on 8-6-21. 

Second, the declaration of Tom Brown, supports mandatory and permissive intervention.  As to mandatory intervention, this declaration shows that Intervenor has a protectable interest in the subject o this action.  The declaration states in part: (1) “Both Pacquiao and Spence were interested in fighting each other. On May 21, 2021, Pacquiao agreed to fight Spence as the ‘2nd Fight,’ obligation he owed to TGB. The Pacquiao-Spence fight is scheduled for August 21, 2021. The boxing match between Pacquiao and Spence will be the ‘2nd Fight’ under the 2018 Agreement, the Second Amendment, and the Third Amendment.”  (Brown Decl., ¶ 16); (2) “TGB determined the site for the bout.” (Brown Decl., ¶ 19a.); (3) TGB entered into discussions with its broadcast partner, Fox Sports, to commence the process of airing the August 21 Pacquiao-Spence match on its pay-per-view (PPV) platform.” (Brown Decl., ¶ 19b.); (3) “TGB solicited sponsors and advertisers for the event . . . .” (Brown Decl., ¶ 19c.); (4) “TGB also ‘filled the card’ for the August 21 Pacquiao-Spence match.” (Brown Decl., ¶ 19d.); (5) “All of above described efforts would be wasted and lost if Paradigm is allowed to stop the August 21 Pacquiao-Spence match.”  (Brown Decl. ¶ 20.); (6) “. . . an order stopping the August 21 Pacquiao-Spence match would impose staggering financial and reputational harm on TGB . . . .” (Brown Decl., ¶ 33.); and (7) TGB has a contractual relationship with Defendant (Emmanuel Dapidran Pacquiao). (Brown Decl., ¶¶ 9-17 and Exhibit A.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint requests, “Interim/injunctive relief enjoining Pacquiao from participating in the Spence fight on August 21, 2021, until further order of the Court.” (Complaint; 20:16-17.)  Intervenor has a protectable interest in the August 21, 2021 fight because Intervenor claims it has a contractual relationship with Defendant, and has expended significant efforts in organizing the fight.  Intervenor would lose the results of those efforts based on Plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief.

Third, Intervenor has demonstrated that stopping the fight would impair TGB’s ability to protect its interests because it would result in TGB losing the efforts it expended in organizing the fight and the results those efforts.

Fourth, Plaintiff cannot adequately represent Intervenor’s rights because Plaintiff seeks relief that contradicts Intervenor’s rights.  Defendant cannot adequately represent Intervenor’s interests because Defendant did not enter into the other relationships, as described by the Brown declaration, necessary to organize the fight.

Thus, the court GRANTS the Motion as to mandatory intervention.

Even if mandatory intervention were not required, permissive intervention is appropriate.  “To support permissive intervention, it is well settled that the proposed intervener’s interest in the litigation must be direct rather than consequential, and it must be an interest that is capable of determination in the action. [Citations.] The requirement of a direct and immediate interest means that the interest must be of such a direct and immediate nature that the moving party ‘ “will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.” [Citation.]’ [Citations.] ‘A person has a direct interest justifying intervention in litigation where the judgment in the action of itself adds to or detracts from his legal rights without reference to rights and duties not involved in the litigation. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Conversely, ‘An interest is consequential and thus insufficient for intervention when the action in which intervention is sought does not directly affect it although the results of the action may indirectly benefit or harm its owner.’ [Citation.]” (City and County of San Francisco v. State of California (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1037 (City and County of San Francisco) (Italics in City and County of San Francisco).)  “In order that a party be permitted to intervene it is not necessary that his interest in the action be such that he will inevitably be affected by the judgment. It is enough that there be a substantial probability that his interests will be so affected.” (Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 881 (Timberidge) (Italics in Timberidge.).) 

Intervenor has followed the proper procedures in bringing this Motion.  As discussed above, TGB has a direct and immediate interest in Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for declaratory relief and in any injunctive relief Plaintiff may seek.  That is, the requested injunctive relief will impact Intervenor’s ability to proceed with the fight it has organized.  It does not appear that the proposed intervention will enlarge the issues.  Finally, the reasons for intervention outweigh any opposition because of Plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief.  Thus, the court GRANTS the Motion as to permissive intervention.

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Intervenor’s (TGB Promotions, LLC) Motion to Intervene filed on 7-26-21 under ROA No. 71. 

Intervenor is to give notice.

About Manuel "Boy" Mejorada
Manuel "Boy" Mejorada is a journalist and social media activist. A former Iloilo provincial administrator, he is now waging a crusade against corruption and narco-politics.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: