Forgot your password?
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
  • default color
  • green color
  • red color


Mar 08th
Home Sections Sports Defendants’ Lawyers Ask Nevada Exec and Filipino Reporter to Testify in Pacquiao-Mayweather Case
Defendants’ Lawyers Ask Nevada Exec and Filipino Reporter to Testify in Pacquiao-Mayweather Case PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 1
Sections - Sports
Written by Joseph G. Lariosa   
Tuesday, 22 June 2010 06:02



(Journal Group Link International)


Defendants’ Lawyers Ask Nevada Executive and Filipino Reporter to Testify in Pacquiao-Mayweather Defamation Case


C HICAGO (JGLi) – The lawyers for Oscar de la Hoya and Richard Schaefer want to depose Keith Kizer, the executive director of the Nevada Athletic Commission, and Filipino reporter Ronnie Nathanielsz if the U.S. District Court in Nevada in Las Vegas is not going to dismiss the $5-million defamation suit filed against them by Filipino boxing hero Manny Pacquiao.


In their reply memorandum of points and authorities in support of Richard Schaefer’s and Oscar de la Hoya’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, Schaefer and De la Hoya’s lawyers led by Judd Burstein and Greenberg Glusker said, “should the Court conclude that Mr. Nathanielsz’s Declaration can be read in a manner other than as contended by Mr. Schaefer, Defendants should be granted the opportunity to depose Mr. Nathanielsz at least with respect to the issue of jurisdiction.”

On the other hand, if the Court "entertains doubts as to the issue of whether the use of PEDs (performance-enhancing drugs) was “under consideration” by the Commission during the relevant time period, it should grant (them) Defendants a brief deposition of Keith Kizer, the Executive Director of the Commission, to ascertain the facts.”




N athanielsz’s Declaration refers to a sworn testimony Pacquiao’s lawyers submitted in court, affirming to the effect that when Nathanielsz told Schaefer that “Mr. Pacquiao had improved significantly since the fight (of Pacquiao) against (Juan Manuel) Marquez, including knockouts over De la Hoya and Ricky Hatton, Mr. Schaefer, responded: ”Ronnie, I am sure Manny is on performance-enhancing drugs.”


Schaefer’s lawyers contend that when Mr. Nathanielsz signed the Declaration on May 25, 2010 “while being in the Philippines” and “under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Nevada,” as opposed to under the  “laws of the United States,” it will be “inadmissible,” unless Nathanielsz submits a new Declaration without “substantive changes.”


Mr. Kizer’s testimony will verify if it is true that Top Rank’s Bob Arum “said the Nevada State Athletic Commission under its highly-respected Keith Kizer is ‘beside themselves’ over the Mayweather [testing] demands.”




T he lawyers for Schaefer and De la Hoya told the court that it should dismiss Pacquiao’s complaint for the following reasons:


First, Pacquiao applies the wrong standard to evaluate the adequacy of his pleading, saying, “allegations of conspiracy and actual malice fail to demonstrate … any “plausible” claims.”


Second, on the submitted evidence, it is clear that there was no conspiracy between Mr. Schaefer or Mr. de la Hoya and any of the other Defendants, including the Mayweather father and son and uncle, Roger Mayweather.


Third, Pacquiao’s claim against Mr. Schaefer fails for two independent reasons, both of which are confirmed by his opposition –  “that Mr. Nathanielsz, to whom Mr. Schaefer allegedly made the statement at issue, never revealed the alleged statement to anyone other than” other than Arum. Pacquiao can only collect “nominal damages.”


Fourth, Pacquiao’s claim against Mr. de la Hoya fails because not only did Mr. de la Hoya make it clear that he was not accusing Plaintiff (Pacquiao) of improper conduct, but because Pacquiao bases his claim on a statement of Mr. de la Hoya about how punches felt to him, a quintessential statement of subjective opinion that is not capable of being proven true or false. And


Finally, in arguing that the Anti-SLAPP statute does not apply, Pacquiao ignores the fact that not only is the issue of steroid use by fighters of paramount interest to the Nevada State Athletic Commission, but that the Commission volunteered to become involved in the very dispute between Pacquiao and Mr. Mayweather, Jr. concerning testing for banned substances.


Counsels on both sides also asked the court to hold oral argument on the case “on August 6, 9, 10, 11, or 12, 2010.” # # #


Editor’s Notes: To contact the author, please e-mail him at:  (


Newer news items:
Older news items:

Last Updated on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 06:06

Add your comment

Your name:
Your email:
Comment (you may use HTML tags here):

Quote of the Day

5 days a week my body is a temple.The other two, it's an amusement park.~Unknown